Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 217

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 210←Archive 215Archive 216Archive 217Archive 218Archive 219Archive 220

RFC on Sorting of Names with Particles

(non-admin closure) Consensus is against either option A or B exclusively. While there is rough consensus for option C (It depends), there is no consensus on what it should depend on. Some commenters say it should depend on the subject's preference; others say to follow the article's sources; yet others say to follow cultural conventions. WP:MCSTJR may provide some guidance. - MrX 🖋 22:06, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This issue has to do with the sorting of surnames that are preceded by prefixes known as particles, such as de or von. The rules for sorting of surnames are complex and depend on the customs of the nationality. The question is whether names should be sorted based on the national origin of the surname, or the nationality of the person. An example is Luann de Lesseps, an American socialite and reality TV personality, whose surname is that of her French nobleman husband. Should she be alphabetized as: A. de Lesseps, Luann (nationality of person, American) or B. Lesseps, Luann de (national origin of name, French) or C. It depends. If so, specify what it depends on.

Enter your !votes with a brief statement as A or B. Enter any back-and-forth comments in the Threaded Discussion.

RfC expired on October 16 and restarted on October 20. KyleJoantalk 03:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC) I have updated the RFC to add C. If specifying C, please indicate what it depends on. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Survey

  • Oppose both A and B. The correct answer is: it depends. If we have evidence that the subject prefers one usage or the other, we should follow that. The two given choices A and B are insufficient, and we should not start making rules for things that would normally fall under editorial judgement per WP:CREEP. So formulating this RFC as a binary choice between which of two new rules we should impose was a bad choice. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support A, B or C. It is standard practice in the library and archive world to index names by the particle if the name is not native to the country from which the individual comes and without it if it is. So, in this case, as she's American it would be A, but if she was French it would be B. However, this would only apply if it was her birth name. Given it's her married name and her husband, as a Frenchman, would be indexed without the particle, it's a less cut and dried case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support B. Lesseps, Luann de. Since her name is a French name that she still uses post-divorce, given to her by marriage from a French nobleman, Count Alexandre de Lesseps, and the traditional cultural usage as well as historical indexing of the name is to sort by the surname not the particle, I think one would conclude that in this case it should be indexed under Lesseps. I see no reason to index them differently because of nationality. AnAudLife (talk) 17:25, September 16, 2019 ‎(UTC)
  • Support B. The sorting order of names should depend solely on the name, not on any other factor that has nothing to do with the name itself. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support B - The sorting order of names should depend on the national origin and history of the name, not of the person with the name. If related persons in a family have different nationalities, they should still sort together. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • C – it depends. The same name is apt to be indexed differently by language and other cultural considerations. Jan van Leuwen in Amsterdam probably expects to be alphabetized under L, and even most English-language sources would do so (at least formal and academic publishers would, and WP is one). But a Torontonian, Londoner, or San Franciscan named John Van Leuwen (and he probably would capitalize the V) would generally expect alphabetization under V. "Van" is just an opaque name fragment in English, but means (and is parsed as) 'of' in Dutch.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • C - Make it simple and base it on the same reliable English-language sources that presumably informed the rest of the article. We can spend hours parsing a name's history and details of cultural usage but at the end of the day, if the New York Times (or some other reliable source) uses de Lessup, Luann, then why not go with it? If equally solid, respectable sources use different naming conventions (there's plenty of that) then sort it out on the talk page. Glendoremus (talk) 04:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support C, The sorting of names with prefixes varies according to cultural tradition. This case refers to an American television series, and an American person, written in American English. I see no reason not to follow American procedure per WP:MCSTJR, with the proviso that an American name means the name of an American person, regardless of the history of the name, as that is the simplest logical interpretation of WP:MCSTJR. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • A it depends on the article language - the description is correct that the rules are complex and depend on the customs of the nationality. The order or capitalizing of nobiliary particles in grammar guide (Chicago Manual of Style et al) or common answers would be hard to describe. (I'll note that I have seen cases such as John le Carre listed under l and under C, and Vanderbilt as a single string is obviously under V, Van Gogh is capital V but not Vincent van Gogh, , Charles de Gaulle is lowercase d, but not Cecil De Mille, and then Martin van Buren and so forth.) But there could at least be a simplification convention for practicality that the usage in a list would dependent on the article language (e.g. in British English) so that the list would consistently follow one set of rules and a name can be found. In the context shown I think that would be to start with the particle and to capitalize it as the first letter: "De Lessups, Luann"; "Le Carre, John"; "De Gaulle, Charles". Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support C. Due to the inconsistency between the subject's nationality and that of the first person known to have the surname, sorting Mrs. de Lesseps in a way that is analogous to the way she invokes her name (i.e. de Lesseps, Luann) seems the most appropriate. KyleJoantalk 00:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support C. With German names, both options are required, as with French, Dutch, etc. There are names such as von Allmen where the «von» is a necessary part of the name, and there are other cases where it is a detachable nobility prefix, so we need both options. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 07:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support B. Depends on the language of the article: sorting is for the benefit of the reader, who cannot be expected to know the subjects' nationalities nor their various sorting conventions. Besides, I'd look for Richard of York under Y whether or not "of York" is really a surname or not. Batternut (talk) 08:28, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • D Sort on the particle for everybody. No exceptions. --Khajidha (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support C. The sorting should be based on the most usual capitalisation of the article in the full combined first and last name. If the article is capitalised, it should be used in sorting, if it is not capitalised it should be ignored in sorting. Advantage of this rule is that no deep digging into origin of name and person is needed, while the used spelling needs to be sourced anyway.−Woodstone (talk) 06:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • C Follow the sources for the speciifc case, and failing that (if sources are not clear) use editorial judgement. This is to complex for per-defiend rules. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support C (opposing both A and B) as per David Eppstein, and particularly "it depends", and we should not straitjacket editorial judgment. Also: While allowing that rest of the world is not entirely consistent (especially across languages), we should not try to be different. Collating of names is something we should strive to be as consistent as possible with general practice in order to minimize confusion (the principle of least surprise). For that reason any discussion that does not review other authoritative practice is deficient, and therefore not a proper basis for making a rule. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

  • According to this [1] there was a Proton family in New Jersey in 1880 and Protons lifespan has been decreasing recently ("An unusually short lifespan might indicate that your Proton ancestors lived in harsh conditions"). This [2] suggests there are Protons in far-flung India, Australia and Argentina. So this question about particles has more significance than one might think.
Seriously, we've talked about this recently with no resolution:
At that time I passed on someone's suggestion to start alphabetizing with the first uppercased word (i.e. ignore the particle if it's lowercased). We're certainly not going to countenance rules based on someone's nationality -- can you imagine that Arbcom case? (That's assuming we adopt a rule at all -- not convinced yet of that, as I still haven't seen the dispute on multiple articles called for in WP:NONEEDNORULE.)
Of course, in these days of <ctrl>-F I wonder how much this matters anyway. EEng 01:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • WP:MCSTJR states: Whether or not to include the particle in sorting can be up to the individual's personal preference, traditional cultural usage or the customs of one's nationality, and that American, Australian, Canadian, and English names generally sort on the prefix, regardless of capitalization. What is the correct interpretation of these guidelines? For example, all of the most common surnames in Australia in 2007 originated elsewhere. So, would Australian names in this context be names that originated in Australia, are popular in Australia, or names of Australian nationals? If it is all of the above, then wouldn't the customs of one's nationality encompass traditional cultural usage? Furthermore, regarding this case specifically, according to this New York Times article, the subject states that she prefers to be addressed as Mrs. de Lesseps. I wonder whether that qualifies as a personal preference. KyleJoantalk 01:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • In WP:MCSTJR it says, “Names with particles or prefixes are a complex field and there are exceptions and inconsistencies.” And then goes on to say, “Whether or not to include the particle in sorting can be up to the individual's personal preference, traditional cultural usage or the customs of one's nationality.” Firstly, we have absolutely no idea how she prefers her name to be alphabetized but we do know that she likes it spoken out loud as “Luann” or Mrs. de Lesseps, which is common, you don’t drop the particle when speaking the name. Secondly, traditional cultural usage is, according to WP:MCSTJR, “Generally, Dutch, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish names do not include lowercase particles in sorting, but do include uppercase particles.” Example being Ferdinand de Lesseps, the French diplomat, who, according to Merriam Webster’s Manual for Writer’s and Editors should be sorted under Lesseps not under the particle de. *Note, Luann’s ex-husband, whose name she bears, is a direct descendant of the French diplomat Ferdinand de Lesseps. Thirdly, Luann de Lesseps is of French, Canadian and Algonquin ancestry and she was born in America, so that brings us to the sorting by “custom of one’s nationality”. So what is the custom of American sorting? There are so many other American references like International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (page 68 & 69 of publication, but page 40 of PDF) and the Merriam Webster’s reference I cited earlier and many others that also support sorting by the surname and not by the particle in American reference and catalogue. I don’t want to clutter this area up with a massive amount of links but I will if asked or if necessary. Let me also add, that indexing members of a family bearing the same name that all have different nationalities not only sounds absurd but extremely complicated, unnecessarily tedious and would open up a world of problems in other cases, which is maybe why most indexing instructional references prefers sorting by traditional cultural usage. How would one know to look up Luann by the particle and her ex-husband by the surname? In this particular case, Luann is listed and mentioned along with several other socialites on the The Real Housewives of New York page so making this determination is important for alphabetization purposes. Lastly, WP:MCSTJR also states, “American, Australian, Canadian, and English names generally sort on the prefix, regardless of capitalization.” Her name is neither American, Australian, Canadian or English, as we’ve already deciphered that it is indeed a French name. What this seems to boil down to is does Wikipedia want to adhere to American cataloging norms and customs and index as Lesseps, Luann de or under a different set of indexing rules yet to be established? AnAudLife (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am not convinced that we have established that de Lesseps is a "French name". How is "French name" defined in this context? Is du Plessis a French name or a South African name? Most of the people I know with the name are from families which immigrated over a century ago and cannot speak French at all. Is van der Merwe South African or Dutch? At which point does a name become Australian? Are the names that came over with William the Conqueror now English? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    The name de Lesseps in this particular case: Luann's ex-husband is a direct descendant of the French diplomat Ferdinand de Lesseps (who developed the Suez Canal), can be traced back to France as far back as the 14th century, prior to that some of his ancestors, it is believed, came from Spain, see Wikipedia. Which takes us back to WP:MCSTJR, “Generally, Dutch, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish names do not include lowercase particles in sorting, but do include uppercase particles.”AnAudLife (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    Not quite my point. Does the MOS explain how a name is allocated to a nationality? If it does I have missed it. Two immediately obvious possibilities are that the person with the name is French (either a national of France, or French speaking), or the name has a French origin, which in this case is not disputed. In the case of American and Australian names, the second option is unlikely, as most Australian and American names originated in other countries, including France. For consistency we must consider the possibility that the first option was intended, but it remains unclear. The context of MOS suggests that the first possibility may have been intended, so there is a need to know how a "French name" is defined in this context. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 14:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    Exactly. Unless we have data that supports the notion that the first person with the surname de Lesseps had adopted or were given the surname while under French jurisdiction, the exact origin of the name is not and will never be fully known. The reason it’s colloquially known as a “French name” is because the people known as having the name are/were French nationals. KyleJoantalk 21:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    @Pbsouthwood: Some would argue that we're all descendants of Adam and Eve who had no surname that anyone knows of. Some could also argue that we all evolved from apes who had no names at all. At some point we have to draw an intelligent conclusion. As I stated previously, de Lesseps can be traced back to France as far back as the 14th century, that is a far cry from the one century you spoke of when referring to people you personally know with a French surname. And since the 14th century is as far back as we can go with this surname, then that should be the accepted origin until we learn otherwise. AnAudLife (talk) 22:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
    I am clearly not getting my point through, so will try again. I do not think that the origin of the name is what WP:MCSTJR refers to in American, Australian, Canadian, and English names generally sort on the prefix, regardless of capitalization. However, there are discrepancies between different sources on whether to sort on the prefix or not. I think that it is the nationality of the person with the name. I accept that this could be clearer, and it is possible that the intention of the person who wrote the guidance may have differed from my interpretation, but until someone comes up with a reasonably plausible explanation of what constitutes an "American, Australian, Canadian, or English name" other than the name of an American, Australian,Canadian or English national, I consider the name should be sorted on prefix. Whether the first person to bear the name on record was French by nationality or home language, or whether the first instance of the name on record was written in France or elsewhere is to my mind not relevant. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 04:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
    Okay, obviously there are different interpretations here of the sentence "American, Australian, Canadian, and English names generally sort on the prefix, regardless of capitalization. However, there are discrepancies between different sources on whether to sort on the prefix or not" in WP:MCSTJR. I still believe the intention is to refer to NAMES, it even says names, not meaning the nationality of the individual, but the names. WP:NAMESORT is written in great detail about sorting many different surnames and it covers a lot of name origins; Arabic, Chinese, Icelandic, Nobles, Spanish, French, Jewish, etc., and then it covers American, Australian, Canadian and English in the sentence we're discussing. I can't imagine the nightmare of indexing based upon where someone was born and I sincerely doubt the author meant it that way. Additionally, The New York Times article that is being referenced, is being completely misconstrued. Luann de Lesseps is talking about how on the show she had chastised Bethenny Frankel for introducing her as "Luann" instead of "Mrs. de Lesseps" to a driver. She references it being "a level of respect", she believes it's proper manners to not introduce someone by the first name only (I watched the episode). Both Luann and Alexandre refer to themselves as Mr. or Mrs. de Lesseps, they don't drop the "de" when being introduced or spoken to. This has nothing to do with how she prefers to be indexed and I can't understand why anyone would draw that conclusion from this article. AnAudLife (talk) 05:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
    "American, Australian, Canadian, and English names" is obviously referring to the names of people from those countries. It is saying that for native English speakers names such as "van der Waals" or "de la Mer" sort under V and D respectively, regardless of how such names would be sorted in the source language. --Khajidha (talk) 03:18, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
    PS - the idea of indexing by what language a name derives from is what causes my nightmares. If a person is named "Pierre de la Whatever", then his personal name is "Pierre" and the rest is his surname and would be indexed under "D". That is the only thing that makes sense to me. --Khajidha (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • To ensure all of the information is presented, according to this article containing legal documents, the name is legally spelled as one name under the United States jurisdiction (i.e. DeLesseps), which differs from the spelling used in her common name (i.e. de Lesseps). KyleJoantalk 04:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    Hollywood Life? I hardly think that is a reputable source for anything whatsoever. This dispute was never about the spelling of her name, it’s well established that it is “de Lesseps” AnAudLife (talk) 05:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, HollywoodLife.com, owned by Penske Media Corporation (PMC), is an unreputable source in the vein of Variety, Rolling Stone, WWD, Deadline Hollywood, BGR, and others, all owned by PMC. This dispute was never about the spelling of her name, it’s well established that it is “de Lesseps” – I guess the legal documents are wrong, then. KyleJoantalk 05:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    I guess we should capitalize it all as well, just like in those “legal docs” that are allegedly the real deal. Or maybe, we should go with how she spells her name everywhere else, which is “de Lesseps”, just like her ex-husband does and their 2 children do. The spelling, the capitalization and the space on “de Lesseps” has NEVER been disputed by anyone, even you, until now. AnAudLife (talk) 05:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    I'm not following. Are you still suggesting that the source is not credible or are you suggesting that the spelling of her name under US jurisdiction–regardless of whether it is spelled DELESSEPS, DeLesseps, or Delesseps–does not play a part in sorting her common name? The two assertions cannot both be true. I'm merely saying that maybe some users will consider that distinction a factor in figuring out how to appropriately sort the common name, indubitably spelled de Lesseps. KyleJoantalk 18:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
    I am saying that this dispute has been going on for MONTHS and you're just now suggesting there is no space between "de" and "Lesseps"??????? That was never once brought up by you during our MANY , many, many discussions. This so called alleged "legal document" photo, shared by a gossip tabloid, is the only thing in existence which blends the two. The show which Luann de Lesseps has been on for many years, credits her as Luann de Lesseps, small "d", space, capital "L" as does every reputable source available to the public. So am I to understand that you are now asserting an entirely different viewpoint on this issue??? AnAudLife (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
    You do realize the spelling and capitalization of one's common name can differ from that of their legal name? Yes, we are sorting her common name, but I'm presenting the legal spelling of it to make sure when one makes a statement regarding sorting that they have all of the information. Also, I've cited the legal document before as one of the bases of my position, so please refer to that so I don't have to keep repeating myself. This so called alleged "legal document" photo, shared by a gossip tabloid, is the only thing in existence which blends the two. Again, are you still contending that the source is unreliable? If so, state it and present your reasoning so we can understand. KyleJoantalk 18:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I think that your assumption that the VERY WELL KNOWN name, "de Lesseps", dating back centuries, is spelled "Delesseps" based on one alleged photo shared by a tabloid rag is a huge reach. More importantly, this new argument of yours has no real bearing on this discussion, as to how it is sorted. AnAudLife (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying why Hollywood Life is unreliable. Cheers! KyleJoantalk 19:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
@KyleJoan:According to this handwritten note on personalized stationery by Luann de Lesseps located on her own Instagram account there is indeed a space between "de" and "Lesseps" so lets just put that argument to bed, even real legal documents can contain grammatical errors let alone contentious legal documents as you've cited. If you need further verification, her own Twitter account also indicates a space between "de" and "Lesseps". And I'll go even one more, her own Facebook account indicates a space between "de" and "Lesseps". I highly doubt that she would order stationery with her name incorrectly spelled, nor would she set up 3 different social media accounts with her name incorrectly spelled. Like I said, this was never the original dispute and has no bearing on it whatsoever. It should not be considered at all when discussing whether or not to sort on "Lesseps" or "de". AnAudLife (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Forget every point I or anyone on this thread have made about common names. You are absolutely right that every person’s stationery and social media handle always and without exception use their legal name, as so many sources state. Seriously, someone needs to update these articles’ subjects’ legal names because they don’t match the names on their respective social media handles: Ariana Grande, Barbra Streisand, Celine Dion, etc. Like I said, this was never the original dispute and has no bearing on it whatsoever. It should not be considered at all when discussing whether or not to sort on "Lesseps" or "de". That’s your opinion. Let’s see if others agree. In the meantime, feel free to keep asserting that everyone’s legal name and common name are one and the same and that Hollywood Life is unreliable and that legal documents are grammatically incorrect all while simultaneously maintaining that none of these factors matter. Cheers! KyleJoantalk 21:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I honestly can't keep up with the irrational change in this discussion. What began as whether to sort by the "L" in Lesseps (which is most common) as opposed to the particle "de" has now changed into whether her name is incorrectly spelled, even by herself. Okay. AnAudLife (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
No one is saying anyone’s name is incorrectly spelled. Must be another RfC on another sorting discussion. I still wonder, AnAudLife, do you understand that there are situations where one’s common name differs from their legal name? KyleJoantalk 21:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, you are. You are suggesting that her name is deLesseps without a space between the particle "de" and root "Lesseps". If there is another RFC please do share. AnAudLife (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I still wonder, AnAudLife, do you understand that there are situations where one’s common name differs from their legal name? KyleJoantalk 22:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
What I understand is that we need to stay on topic, and THIS topic is whether to sort Luann de Lesseps' name under the particle "de" or the root "Lesseps" and that is all that this topic is about. It's not necessary for you to wonder about me or what I know. So, how about we stick to that? Thanks! AnAudLife (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
@AnAudLife: I agree, so I'd like to sum up this particular discussion in relation to the topic at hand. I recognize that you believe the spelling of her legal name does not factor into the sorting of her common name. SMcCandlish stated a similar view below, and I told them I recognized that as well, so believe me, your position is very clear. What is not clear is to me is your reasoning, so can you please help me understand it? To put it in context, the reasoning for your belief that the spelling of her legal name does not factor into the sorting of her common name is:
A. The source that annotates her legal name is unreliable, therefore, the authenticity of the legal document cited is questionable, and none of that matters anyway
B. People's personal stationery always and without exception annotate their legal name
C. The spelling of people's names in legal documents, especially "contentious ones", are "grammatically incorrect"
D. People's social media handles are the most accurate source in regards to their legal name
E. There's not a distinction between one's common and legal names; a name is a name, and that's that
F. All of the above

You can choose to answer or not to answer, but if there's a lapse in my analysis, please tell me so so I can better adhere to WP:COMPETENCE by assessing the errors in my own viewpoint because as of this time, I do not believe that the statements above can all be true. And finally, it would be remiss of me if I didn't tell you how much I appreciate the productive discussion we've had. Thank you! KyleJoantalk 04:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@KyleJoan: How about you just stick to the topic? I’m not going to address any of those ramblings because it’s becoming increasingly clear to me that our goals here are polar opposite. I would like to reach a consensus whereas you want a grand argument. I thought you were going to avoid arguing with me as per the statements you made during the proposed interaction ban. Again, please stick to the original topic of discussion. AnAudLife (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
This back-and-forth began when you responded to my original comment and tried to discredit the source I presented, did it not? The original comment itself had nothing to do with you or your view. Am I expected to just agree with every one of your responses and not challenge an unfounded assertion that the source I presented is unreliable? Aside from that, I’ve always chosen to respond to you. You can choose otherwise if you please; there’s nothing saying that you have to respond to me. And finally, if you so strongly believe that I keep “rambling” off-topic and that this discussion is better off without my questions and suggestions, I recommend that you suggest a topic ban per WP:TBAN so that I stop. Thanks! KyleJoantalk 12:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh I'm going to do something alright, arguing for the sake of arguing is counter-productive and I will not continue to indulge you. Cheers! AnAudLife (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
You know what helps productivity? Answering questions. You'd be surprised by how productive a discussion becomes when questions are answered. That WP:TBAN recommendation to topic ban me still stands, by the way. Cheers to you as well! KyleJoantalk 17:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • There is was a redundant discussion open at Talk:The Real Housewives of New York City#Request for comments on alphabetizing cast members. In that particular case, this comment by someone else is obviously correct: "Luann de Lesseps, an American, married a Frenchman, Alexandre de Lesseps. He is French, his name is French therefore so is Luann's." It's not the Anglicized name "De Lesseps" (usually alphabetized under "D"), it's the French name "de Lesseps" (alphabetized under "L"). Similarly, if Emma Vandenberg was born Emma Shtoop in the Netherlands and married an American named Jim-Bob Vandenberg, she's alphabetized as Vandenberg, Emma, regardless of the fact that her next door neighbor growing up in Amsterdam was Jan van den Berg, alphabetized under B. This is about languages and conventions within them (more precisely, the average conventions of publishers who focus on works in that language, as encapsulated in the majority of style guides and other reliable sources on what to do in those particular languages) – not where a specific individual was born. Anyway, I've referred parties at that talk page to this talk page, since there's this open RfC on it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
    Do you believe the sorting of the common name (i.e., Luann de Lesseps) is entirely unaffected by the legal spelling and capitalization of the name (i.e., Luann Delesseps or Luann DeLesseps)? KyleJoantalk 18:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
    See WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAME. WP really doesn't care what an official/legal name of something is (other than to note it somewhere, with a source, often as a WP:BOLDSYN in the lead), since we use the most common name in independent reliable sources. If our article is at Luann de Lesseps, and it's a French name (i.e., directly from France, as is the case here, despite the individual being American by birth), it would be sorted under L. If the article ends up at a spelling like DeLesseps, it would likely go under D, though that would come at the cost of consistency with her French-national husband's spelling, if he's notable and has an article (or a categorized redirect because he's not quite notable enough for a stand-alone article). COMMONNAME is a policy, so it's apt to supersede other considerations like sorting consistency within the same family, but such an inconsistency is best avoided if possible.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
    I understand. I wasn't suggesting to sort with consideration directed more toward the legal name over the common name itself; I simply wanted your assessment regarding how one factors into the other. On that note, I see your point, even though I personally disagree. As of now, it looks like the survey is still pretty split. I guess we'll wait some more to see what more users think. Cheers! KyleJoantalk 20:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
    @SMcCandlish:Would you mind terribly adding your Support/Oppose A, B or C (and why) above in the appropriate section so it can be considered along with the rest? It may get lost and not considered in this threaded discussion. AnAudLife (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
    One more thing, SMcCandlish. Would you consider Luann de Lesseps wanting to be addressed as Mrs. de Lesseps an indication as to how she prefers being indexed? KyleJoantalk 21:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
    Are you serious? Then maybe we should index her under the "M" for "Mrs." while we're at it? Speaking someone's surname does not indicate how the name should be properly sorted any whatsoever. Cheers! AnAudLife (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
    "Speaking someone's surname does not indicate how the name should be properly sorted" This statement makes no sense. --Khajidha (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
    @Khajidha: Sure it does, if one can effectively read, comprehend and reason. Just because someone is referred to as “Mrs. John Smith”, doesn’t necessarily mean that it is proper to index her by John instead of Smith. AnAudLife (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
    Of course you wouldn't index her by "John". John is a first name, not a surname. "Mrs. de Lesseps" is not comparable to "Mrs. John Smith", but is comparable to "Mrs. Smith". --Khajidha (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
    You’re missing the point, but that’s okay, most editors understand the point I made. Cheers! AnAudLife (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, I am serious. Thank you for asking! Cheers to you, too! KyleJoantalk 21:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
    No. We have no information on how she "prefers being indexed" and it's unlikely much of anyone wants to be indexed a particular way; it's not something people think about in their daily lives. Nor would Wikipedia care upon encountering an exception; our categories and their alphabetization have no relationship to subjects' personal preferences and do not exist as something like a celebrity phone book, under subjects' listing control. They're an as-consistent-as-we-can-be internal system of information arrangement. (And this is one of those inevitable cases of "warring consistencies": we can be ultra-consistent and treat every name exactly the same no matter what, or be consistent within a language, or be consistent about always treating non-significant name particles as something to not alphabetize by, or be consistent with national usages (based on citizenship), or be consistent within a family, or be consistent across all instances of a particular name regardless of familial relations, or [whatever]. It is not possible to satisfy everyone, no matter what we do, so we should stop arguing about it and stick with our current practices, because they are good enough. There's also a fundamental logic error here; French people (etc.) will tell you that the surname is de Lesseps but will still alphabetize by L, because that's the significant part of the name in that language. De only becomes a significant part of the name to alphabetize by in a language in which de doesn't mean 'of'. Someone born Betty-Sue De Lesseps in Tennessee would thus be alphabetized under D. This particular Mrs. de Lesseps married into a French family and uses that family name, so French is the applicable language. Anyway, extrapolating from a person's preferred form of address to alphabetization "requirements" is WP:OR (novel synthesis to arrive at a conclusion not actually found in any sources). WP does not read minds. Wouldn't matter if we could, since WP has no obligation to do unusual, inconsistent, reader-confusing things on a case-by-case basis to make a particular subject happy (regardless which version of "consistency" we adopt for our own internal content-management reasons).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
    I understand. To counterpoint, WP:MCSTJR specifically states that one’s personal preference is a factor in sorting, but I see your point about not knowing hers as well. KyleJoantalk 21:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
    I've closed that redundant thread at the article talk page per WP:MULTI, and used {{Moved discussion to}} to soft-redirect people to this RfC. Someone had already removed the RfC tag from the one over there. @KyleJoan, Pbsouthwood, Almond Plate, and AnAudLife: pinging previous commenters at that thread so they can comment here or (if they already did) make sure their views in both RfCs are consistent, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
    @SMcCandlish: The "someone" was KyleJoan (talk · contribs), see this edit the edit summary of which is "Closing RfC."; however, there is no closing summary and the absence of {{closed rfc top}}/{{closed rfc bottom}} does not discourage continued comment (BTW, RfCs typically last thirty days, after which Legobot (talk · contribs) removed the {{rfc}} tag and delists it). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
    Yeah, I wasn't trying to dig up "blame", just consolidate discussions per WP:MULTI.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
    I just put {{closed rfc top}} and {{closed rfc bottom}} on the article's talk to page to ensure that editors come straight here to post their responses. So sorry for the trouble, all! KyleJoantalk 20:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • This FEC contribution record sorts her as DE LESSEPS, COUNTESS LUANN for a contribution that was made in 2015 when she still retained the countess title. If a US government website sorts the name one way, wouldn't it be inappropriate for Wikipedia to sort it differently? KyleJoantalk 11:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
    Yeah, I mean it’s not like that site’s automatically generated or anything like that. Here [3] someone’s listed as LESSEPS, TAUNI DE, so what does that tell us? EEng 14:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
    Touché. Do we know it's automatically generated, though? To make it even more confusing, there was also a donation made by a Luann Delesseps in 2009. There's not even a consistency on how the name is spelled or capitalized. I'm close to giving up. KyleJoantalk 14:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
    Don't touché me or you're gonna get #METOOed. EEng 05:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • According to the show she has been starring in on Bravo TV Network, Real Housewives of New York, for 11 seasons over the course of the last 11 years, she is credited as Luann de Lesseps. Now I'm sure it's a safe assumption to say that if her name was incorrectly spelled, capitalized or spaced in the show's credits, on their website, on her blog that she writes for Bravo, she would have had the powers that be at the network correct it, no one likes their name, their identifier and in her case, essentially her "brand", to be misspelled. Then there is her own website that she uses to promote herself, her cabaret show and businesses, her name is spelled on all these sites I've mentioned as Luann de Lesseps. Lets also not forget that her husband, who holds the title "Count", whose name Luann carries, also writes the name as "de Lesseps". So how about we get back to the original topic at hand, which is how the name is sorted/indexed, by the "de" or by the more commonly recognized "Lesseps", ie: Lesseps, Luann de (which historically it is). AnAudLife (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I've now been summoned by Legobot to this RfC for the SECOND TIME so I really think it's time to put it out of its misery (the RfC, not Legobot – I like Legobot). EEng 05:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, one, two. But the rfcids differ (5D30F85 and E4B5DFF respectively), so as far as Legobot is concerned, they are different RfCs. As for why the rfcids differ - this is due to the antics of KyleJoan (talk · contribs) and Robert McClenon (talk · contribs) in some of these edits. Do not be disheartened - other people will also have been messaged a second time for this RfC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What are "strong ties"?

The guideline as currently written says that "an article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation" should use the English dialect of that nation.

Okay, that makes sense – but, what are strong ties? How does one identify that? How would we actually explain the concept?

I came to this problem when noticing an editor who has been changing a lot of articles to use British English regardless of whether the subject was American or otherwise.([4]) I wanted to let this editor know what our rule is on this point, but discovered I can't, because MOS:TIES doesn't actually explain it. It gives a list of examples but no overview of the underlying idea. It doesn't even cover the most commonly encountered cases, which I would say are biographies or creative works produced primarily in a given country.

I observed that most such articles make the tie clear by stating the subject's nation of origin (or location), typically in the lead. This was agreed with, yet simultaneously rejected: [5].

I'm not married to any particular phrasing or rule of thumb. But if you needed to explain, in plain English, what our rule is on when an English variety should be used for a given article, what phrasing would you use?--Father Goose (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

If the subject of an article is specific to a particular English speaking country, then it should be written in the English of that country. For example, Barack Obama, Houston, Texas, and the Liberty Bell all are specifically American and should be written about in American English. Tony Blair, Glasgow, and Big Ben are specifically British and should be written about in British English.--Khajidha (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh, you're going for the difficult examples, then! Johnbod (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
So, could we use what you just wrote, or a modified form of it, in the MOS:TIES section? It's clearer than what we've got right now.--Father Goose (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Diffs, please, of three or four of the article changes you mentioned. EEng 05:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're asking here.--Father Goose (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm asking for diffs showing the undesirable changes by this "editor who has been changing a lot of articles to use British English regardless of whether the subject was American or otherwise" – all you linked above was this editor's full contributions history. EEng 00:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
[6][7][8]. This specific editor's changes are not the issue, though – hundreds of editors make ENGVAR changes of this nature. Why I'm here is because if I want to tell an editor making such changes what our policy is, I want to be able to point to guidance that explains it in a clear way. That's absent from our guideline at this time.--Father Goose (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
The changes you diffed were clearly not allowable under the current guidelines, so they don't support the idea that the guidelines need changing. Someone who doesn't read the guideline isn't going to follow it no matter what it says. EEng 21:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't worry, there are infinitely more editors changing British to American English, often out of blissful ignorance ("correct grammar" is a favourite edit summary). In practice this leads to few disputes - Sylvia Plath should use AmEng, despite her living in England, but T.S. Elliot British English, as it does. Where there are problems it tends to be in conceptual articles with claims to strong ties pulling in different directions - something invented say in one place, but later mainly used in another. Johnbod (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
    My view is that where something was invented is usually irrelevant. Math, science, engineering have no nationality. If it's a gadget that's very important to one country on a cultural level, and not to others, that's different. I don't have a good example at the moment, but that's the approach I'd use to thinking about it. --Trovatore (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I would offer the following: TIES is mainly for biographies and geographical articles (and only where the subject is from/part of an English-speaking country). If you take out those two categories, the overwhelming remainder of articles are in the domain of RETAIN.
Of course there are exceptions; they can even be grouped into some broad classes, and removing those classes makes the exiguity of TIES-governed articles even more pronounced. Political/legal concepts specific to an English-speaking country. Historical events that happened in a single English-speaking country. Immovable physical artifacts located permanently in an English-speaking country (e.g. buildings). Stuff like that. (Not where something was invented, please!!!)
But if you're reaching to find a "national tie", just don't. Let the established variety stay. Or get a consensus on the talk page to change it, if there's some good reason. If there isn't an established variety, do what you like. --Trovatore (talk) 01:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Works of art are invented. Would you deny TIES for The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, Appalachian Spring, Enigma Variations, The Hay Wain, Pride and Prejudice or Whistler's Mother? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I would say works of art are "created" rather than invented. I won't argue with you if you want to use the word "invent" in that way in your own speech, but it's clearly not what I meant, and I don't think it should have been confusing. --Trovatore (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I would emphasise the word 'strong' in 'strong ties'. If someone was born in Britain and spent most of their life in Britain, then that is a strong tie to Britain and hence British English. If someone was born in America (eg Plath) but then spent considerable time in Britain then there are ties to both countries and therefore neither tie is a strong tie - in which case continue to use whichever variety of English the article started in and don't change it.  Stepho  talk  09:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
These are the edge cases, where there are competing ties. And the guideline should address what to do in those cases too. But what is the core advice that it should offer? I'm not seeking an answer for my own elucidation – what I'm asking is, what plain-language sentence or two can we put in the MOS:TIES section to give the general idea of what a "strong tie" is? Some candidates so far:
  • If the subject of an article is specific to a particular English speaking country, then it should be written in the English of that country. For example, Barack Obama, Houston, Texas, and the Liberty Bell all are specifically American and should be written about in American English. Tony Blair, Glasgow, and Big Ben are specifically British and should be written about in British English. (Khajidha's explanation, above)
  • Such ties are typically stated in the lead of the article, such as a film that is described as "American", or an individual who is described as "Irish", or a geographical subject that is sited within a given nation. (my original suggestion, which I still think is pretty workable)
  • Please offer alternatives below if you disagree with the above initial candidates.
--Father Goose (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Of course the Liberty Bell is a work of art created in England, albeit messed aroung with later.<grin/> Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I think people are over thinking this. The reason we created ENGVAR was to stop endless edit warring over spelling. What we came up with is actually quite simple... Use the variety that makes the most sense given the topic. If you really think the variety used should change, discuss it on the article talk page and gain consensus to change it. If there is any doubt, don’t change it. It isn’t worth arguing about. Blueboar (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, thank you; nicely summari[z|s]ed. --Trovatore (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
    Agree. EEng 21:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm still waiting for examples of real-world situations in which an expanded guideline would have helped. Examples of people blithely changing articles, apparently in ignorance of the existence of the guideline, aren't enough. What we need is multiple talk-page discussions in which editors are wrangling over how to interpret the current guideline. EEng 21:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Biographies of Dutch politicians

Since February of this year, User:TheDutchViewer is contributing to Wikipedia. His main interest is to expand biogrophies of Dutch politicians. Though I appreciate the efforts this user is making, I cannot say his/her edits improve the quality of the articles. Just see some examples:

Joris Voorhoeve

Please cread this article and see what I mean:

  • all subheaders are gone;
  • the contents merely gives a resume in prose, as translated from the "Parlement & Politiek"-website. And then the lead only supplies the offices Voorhoeve held, focusing very much on dates and functions, and hardly what he did during his career.
  • for example, his involvement in the Srebrenica massacre, which is the main reason he is notable, is only mentioned under an image.

Max van der Stoel

Here the lead-section overshadows the article. Per MOS:LEAD, the intro should give "the basics in a nutshell and cultivate interest in reading on;" but this lead sucks away all interest to continue reading. And again, nothing in the lead shows why Van der Stoel was such an interesting personality. After User:TheDutchViewer edited the article for the first time, I tried to spread the lead through the different parts of the article. However, the discussed viewer reverted my edits back to his own (and current) version.

- - - - - -

And these are just two examples of his edits. He gave many other biographies of Dutch polticians a similar treatement. I tried to reason with this user on his talk-page, but I did not get any response.

Now, dear fellow-editors: are my concerns regarding TheDutchViewer's way of editing justified? And if so: what are the best next steps to be taken? Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 08:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I suggest continuing to followup on their talk page. Per WP:CIVIL, Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative ... and to be responsive to good-faith questions. If specific MOS issues persist, consider posting with history of diffs— including the edits in question and attempts to discuss—which you can open up for disucssion at say WP:AN. Sometimes a simple block can be placed, merely asking that a user acknowledge that they at least know they have talk page messages.—Bagumba (talk) 06:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

1st sentence bolding details

Over at WT:ELEMENTS, #First_sentence, we have concluded about the id's in an isotope intro. Initial text should be

Technetium-99 (99Tc, Tc-99) is ...

All fine, all three elements are identifiers. My question is: should the bracketed id's be bolded? Being an ID would say yes, for readability I'd say no ("lede is important, but no don't bold the whole lede"). -DePiep (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable application of MOS:BOLDSYN, since these are alternative titles which redirect to the article. The nearby placement of the bold terms does create a bit of a "sea of black" effect, where it might not be immediately obvious that these are three separate names. You could argue for breaking it up using wording such as:
Technetium-99 (abbreviated 99Tc or Tc-99) is ...
But that's a judgement call. Colin M (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I would say a case like with Dr. Strangelove where you would have a huge chain of bold without the extra words makes sense to avoid. --Masem (t) 03:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, will add words (BTW it is a symbol/formula not an abbr) like
Technetium-99 (also 99Tc or Tc-99). -DePiep (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Yep. This is just the same as "how to get around back-to-back wikilinks". And yes, it's not really an abbreviation as that term is typically used, so I concur with DePiep's version.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

"Omit needless words"

Regarding this sentence (in the MOS:TENSE section): Generally, do not use past tense except for past events and subjects that are dead or no longer meaningfully exist as such: I'm a little bothered by the phrase no longer meaningfully exist as such. ...Meaningfully and as such both feel like unnecessary verbosity to me, and I would cut one or both phrases. (I've been asked to bring this to the talk page.) (Note that this is not inspired by any article dispute or desire to change the practical effect of the section.) WanderingWanda (talk) 05:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Verbosity isn't so much the issue, as ambiguity. "Past events" covers events, "are dead" covers people, and "no longer exist" is intended to cover inanimate objects. However the words "meaningfully" and "as such" add nothing except potential confusion and would be best deleted. MapReader (talk) 09:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
The later example corresponding to this phrase is "The Beatles were an English rock band...". Although McCartney and Starr are still living, the band effectively ("meaningfully") no longer exists. I don't have a problem with the current wording, except that I would say "subjects who are dead or that no longer meaningfully exist...". Jmar67 (talk) 11:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Do you have an example of something that would actually exist but not meaningfully exist, to justify the retention of the word “meaningfully” in the MoS? The Beatles isn’t such, since the band doesn’t exist at all MapReader (talk) 11:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
On this point, I think there has been discussion, but consider that transport wreckage might reasonably exist but not meaningfully exist (such as Peter Iredale). --Izno (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I am not defending the word "meaningfully" at all costs and think it could be considered redundant with "as such" (and vice versa). But I would give the author of this phrase the benefit of the doubt in (apparently) formulating it with a view to the Beatles example. Sometimes we unconsciously prefer redundancy for emphasis. I might prefer to eliminate it in a standard article, however. Jmar67 (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Lost works are another common example. An extant work, like an old film or an ancient manuscript which has survived, receives present tense, but one that RS tell us is lost gets past tense. (If a copy resurfaces, as has happened with a few of the lost episodes of Doctor Who, then the tense would be changed.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that we have the best wording yet but The Beatles do meaningfully exist because they are commonly perceived via recordings which still exist. Other dead rock stars such as Michael Jackson and Freddy Mercury are recreated as acts by means of holographic projections and we are likely to see more of this as the technology advances. The past tense should be reserved for subjects who are considered more historical. Andrew D. (talk) 12:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Changes that are too radical

I would like to add the following to the Typographic conformity section. If this is already addressed elsewhere, please point me in the right direction.

Some changes are so radical that they cause our Wikipedia article(s), with the changed version, to no longer appear when searching for the phrase. This applies especially to exact quotes, article titles, and book names. (See Quotations, titles, etc.

Numbers in an exact quote should not be changed:(Modified per advice from Cullen328.)

  • Acceptable: "Here are 5 reasons..."
  • Unacceptable: "Here are five reasons..."

Numbers in an article title or book name are also exact quotes which should not be changed:(Modified per advice from Cullen328.)

  • Acceptable: "...looked at 4 Americans"
  • Unacceptable: "...looked at four Americans"

This isn't a hypothetical problem. It's happening. -- BullRangifer (talk) 08:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I suggest that you come up with examples that do not involve the current Trump controversies, since that tends to overwhelm everything else. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Cullen328, good suggestion, and so done. We don't want to awaken the ire of our more partisan editors who believe conspiracy theories. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Now that I have reworded my examples, and added the link provided by EEng, may I add them? -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I would call that WP:MOSBLOAT. With SM's recent xref addition [9] it's plenty clear. EEng 03:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Okay. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Merge?

Uh... why does MOS:DIACRITICS still have a merge process tag after nearly two years? If you look at the linked discussion, you find that there are only two supports and no other opinions. It's also there here. UnnamedUser (open talk page) 03:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Because pretty much no one does the MoS-merge work but me, and I've had other stuff on my plate. I changed the {{Merging from}} to a {{Merge from}} to remove the implication that the merge is "in process".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

MOS:TIES and local variations in usage

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islands#RFC "on" v "in" categories
Closing duplicate (later) thread, per WP:TALKFORK, WP:MULTI.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

There is a discussion taking place over whether references to features in Shetland - a group of many inhabited and uninhabited islands - should refer to being "on" or "in" the particular island. My view, as a speaker of (more or less) conventional British English, is that a feature should be described as "on" the relevant island (such as Foula, where this discussion began). However, Griceylipper, who is resident in Shetland, is of the view that that is locally seen as incorrect and "disrespectful", and the Shetland Scots usage of "in" rather than "on" should be used. There is discussion on this at User talk:Griceylipper#In/on islands. Should local usage outweigh conventional national usage in this way? Do editors here have a view? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I would split the difference by using “on” when speaking geographically, and “in” when speaking politically/culturally.

Thinking about this again... it isn’t quite so clear cut. For example, here in America we would say: “Central Park is IN Manhattan” ... yet “The Dutch city of New Amsterdam was founded ON Manhattan”.Blueboar (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it would help if you could take a look at these edits and see what you think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Ghmyrtle Thanks for bringing some wider attention to this. For the sake of editors wanting my view on this - for pretty much every inhabited or previously inhabited island in Shetland, the usage here by locals is exclusively "in", e.g. "in Foula", "in Yell", etc. The two main local news sources - The Shetland Times and The Shetland News apply this usage, here are a couple examples. BBC Radio Shetland uses this usage in their (skip to 4:15 - with reference to Whalsay, "in the isle"). There far too numerous examples to link - just google "in [island name]" and you'll get tons of articles.
To those who think this sounds odd, just consider some other islands like Tenerife, Nantucket or Manhattan - I admit they are all varying degrees larger than the likes of Foula, but doing a Ctrl-F for "[in/on] [island name]" for any of these places shows both "in" and "on" in use without controversy, and I don't think you'd notice anything remotely odd about "in Tenerife", "in Nantucket" or "in Manhattan". Therefore I don't think it can be argued that the usage of "in" is inherently more confusing to general readers than any of the many other quirks that go unquestioned in English by native speakers.
I also can't see there being any means to determine a specific cutoff criteria by which any island must be classified to use either "in" or "on" by size, population, regional classification, etc. The only thing I think is fair to base it on is local usage by the islanders themselves - especially when in Shetland, the term "on" is deemed to create a sense of islanders of being "other" to those using this term. In my opinion, "on" seems to imply that you might get washed "off" by the sea at any moment, and you're clinging on for dear life! To islanders like myself, islands are our homes - you come "in", and you go "out", just like the front door of your home. I think we should respect islanders preferences on this matter. Griceylipper (talk) 20:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure the Manhattan usage here really connects with what you're speaking about, because generally when people are talking about in Manhattan they're talking about the borough, not the island. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
David Fuchs Assuming the boundary of the island and the borough are the same, is it possible to discern whether the island or the borough is being referred to when "in" is used? It could be either equally. Griceylipper (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I would consider "in Manhattan" to be referring to either the borough or the island as they're conterminous and "on Manhattan" to be referring to the island specifically and not the borough. Looking up a different example, O'ahu, "on Oahu" is correct and "in Oahu" is used roughly equally, though I think many of the latter results are from tourist sites, as "on Moloka'i" is used more than twice as often as "in Moloka'i", and for Ni'ihau, which is functionally closed off, "on" is used more than five times as much in Google results. SportingFlyer T·C 10:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Just as a point of order, the Borough of Manhattan and Manhattan Island are not conterminous. The borough includes various smaller islands, such as Roosevelt Island and Randalls Island, as well as the Marble Hill neighborhood that's attached to the Bronx. They are in Manhattan, but not on Manhattan. oknazevad (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
MOS:TIES does not allow "local variations in usage" and has never done so. Please use standard English (as standard as the language gets). Landmasses are "on" and administrative units are "in". (I'll let you consider all the "local variations" of English we definitely do not want to be used here.) --Izno (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Izno So, for Shetland the following islands have their own community councils:
So according to what you say, you can be "in" any of these places. But because Burra and Trondra is part of a single community council, and are three islands (East Burra, West Burra and Trondra) in one administrative unit, you'd be "on" any one of those individual islands, despite the two Burras being some of the most well connected and densely-populated areas in Shetland? Whereas Fetlar, which is considered much more remote, and has a much smaller population can use "in". Can I just confirm this is what you are meaning? It's just this seems very bizarre and contrived to me. Griceylipper (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Google gives 253 results for "on East Burra" and 347 results for "in East Burra." "On Fetlar" has more than 7,000 and "in Fetlar" has fewer. SportingFlyer T·C 05:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Being on an island is parallel to long usage in English of being on the sea, distinct from being in the sea (i.e., partly or wholly submerged). I believe this arises from human experience of the sea and land relating to a mostly planar surface. Burroughs (and similar constructs) are typically characterized not by a surface, but by boundaries, such that one is "in" or "out". ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
J. Johnson I would agree with you if islands floated, but I think there is probably more of the island "in" the sea than "on" it by virtue of it being attached to the seabed. And as for planar, well, you just need to look at Foula to see how un-planar it is! Seriously though, I appreciate the insight. Griceylipper (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
"Planar" is largely a matter of scale (consider the scaled height of the Himalaya Mtns. on a globe of the Earth), but the surface I have in mind is the mainly two-dimensional (or "2.5 D") of the air to land/sea interface where most human experience occurs. Note that while an island is considered "in" the sea, humans are usually "on" islands. Consider also icebergs: big difference in being on rather than in an iceberg. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I am not familiar with this usage of "in" in Hjaltland although I bow to Griceylipper's expertise in the matter. The question for articles about thoise isles is (I think) simply which version of ENGVAR (British, Scottish or Shetlandic) should be applied. More generally in Scotland I wrote this [10] earlier today. Ben MacDui 15:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

NOTE: There is also discussion on this question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islands#RFC "on" v "in" categories - I wasn't aware of that discussion when I raised the issue here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

REFPUNCT

REFPUNCT says "Any punctuation (see exceptions below) must precede the ref tags." However, that may be misleading. Applied to a sentence like

Land concentration is currently increasing in the European Union[1] and the United States.[2]

it could be interpreted as saying that footnote 1 should be moved to the end of the sentence. But INTEGRITY requires the citation to remain beside the statement it supports. I propose that the sentence be changed to "Any adjacent punctuation ..." RockMagnetist(talk) 18:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done, since it's hard to see a minor clarification like this being controversial. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
with this? It's hard to see this achieves the point. A real change to this should certainly not be nodded through - it most certainly would be controversial. We don't like refs dotted around in the middle of text, and sentences need to be worded to avoid this, usually by finding the need for a comma. Removing this would significantly change the look of WP text, much for the worst. Johnbod (talk) 14:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Honestly I don't know what you're saying. What's being removed? What's "dotted around" about? EEng 18:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
What nonsense! Removing the requirement to have refs after punctuation. Refs NOT after punctuation would be dotted around. Please let me know if further clarification is needed. Johnbod (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry... what is nonsense? I simply asked for clarification of what you’re saying. Are you saying that ref callouts (e.g. [99]) should occur only immediately after a piece of punctuation (or before, if the punctuation is a dash, or possibly before and possibly after, if the punctuation is a closing parenthesis)? EEng 22:55, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Better; there's still the occasional use like word word (word word[1]).[2] where [1] is about the parenthetical and [2] about the whole statement. --Izno (talk) 02:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
To show things more realistically, your text would appear as
word word (word word[1]).[2]
Personally I think having [1] inside the parens looks awful. And what if parens aren't present to help delimit the scope of each ref i.e. what if the example was
worda wordb, wordy wordz[1].[2]
where [1] applies to only to worda wordb and [2] applies to the whole statement? I'd recommend instead
word word[2] (word word).[1][2] (your examples)
or
wordw wordx[2] wordy wordz.[1][2] (my example)
That's just my passing comment. Returning to the question at hand, I don't think there was any realistic confusion for adjacent to clear up, and the addition may create new confusion. EEng 18:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. What would "unadjacent" punctuation be? Johnbod (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Struck my comment above because I now see I wasn’t reading things right. I think adjacent helps. Non-adjacent punctuation would be punctuation elsewhere in the sentence, and (though to an experienced editor it may seem silly) it’s not beyond imagining that a novice might be confused in the way the OP hypothesizes. EEng 22:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps it should say "other than parentheses". —BarrelProof (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Parens are addressed in the guideline’s exceptions (though as mentioned above I disagree with its advice on parens). EEng 22:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Addition to dash advice

I propose we slightly extend the section MOS:DASH#Instead of a hyphen, when applying a prefix or suffix to a compound that includes a space to say ... to a compound that includes a space or a dash, so in addition to ex–Prime Minister Thatcher and pre–World War II aircraft we'd have post–Hartree–Fock as opposed to the current article title Post-Hartree–Fock, which wrongly suggests a parallelism between post-Hartree and Fock. OK?

Also, when did "or suffix" get in there? Ah, here it is; did it get discussed? This was explicitly not part of the big 2011 powwow agreement. If we want to keep it, shouldn't we put back the example (or a better one than the one removed here)? Dicklyon (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

My feeble attempts at humor aside, do we really need this elaborate advice –

Use this punctuation when there are compelling grounds for retaining the construction. For example, from a speech that is simply transcribed and cannot be re-worded; or in a heading where it has been judged most natural as a common name; or for conciseness in a caption or table entry. Otherwise recasting is better.

– ? Try this instead [11]. EEng 04:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Yep.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Bahá'í spelling

I started the essay Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Bahá'í spelling following a discussion (and invitation to do so) at Talk:ʻAbdu'l-Bahá. Please discuss at Talk:ʻAbdu'l-Bahá#MOS Bahai orthography, that is, at least until if and when that discussion should move elsewhere. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

"A is B since C"?

The lead sentence of our article on the incumbent British PM currently reads (in abbreviated form) Boris Johnson is a British politician who is the prime minister of the United Kingdom since July 2019. Should this be Boris Johnson is a British politician who has been the prime minister of the United Kingdom since July 2019? I suspect the problem in this case originates with opening sentences on living people generally being "is" sentences, and someone was confused about the subordinate clause, but it definitely feels wrong to me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it should be "has been". Popcornduff (talk) 01:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Awards section on articles on companies

NO ACTION
Wrong venue. If you wish to continue discussion, please do so on the NPOV noticeboard. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 02:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is an awards and recognition section, such as that on the Chobani article, notable in line with the MoS or does it fall under WP:PROMO? I've been seeing multiple instances of lists of awards instead of them being integrated into other sections. Thank you. Daylen (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

IMHO, they're acceptable.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
This page is not the ideal place to discuss this question, since the Manual of Style is more about form than content. You might want to try the NPOV noticeboard instead. IMO the answer to the general question, as in so many cases, is "it depends". In the specific case of Chobani, I would say most of the content in that Awards section is at best WP:UNDUE, and likely the product of astroturfing (the section was added by an IP with no other edits). I'd be inclined to nuke the whole section, and possibly integrate a subset of the content into the prose of the article, if any of the awards are discussed in sources that are independent of the awarding organization, or are notable per se. Colin M (talk) 04:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Between"

One question in the FAQ says:

Why does the Manual of Style distinguish between hyphens (-), en dashes (–), em dashes (—), and minus signs (−)?

I think it's a surprise that no one complains about the use of the word "between" rather than "among" despite there being 4 items rather than 2. Can anyone show me (anywhere in the MOS talk page archives) some threads that talk about the use of "between" in this question?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

No, because it's just a typo and no one would debate about it. [Guess I was wrong about that!] Already fixed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:06, 30 November 2019 (UTC); updated 19:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Is this an ENGVAR difference? "distinguish among ..." sounds very peculiar phrasing to my British ears while "distinguish between ..." more than two items feels completely unremarkable. Thryduulf (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps "distinguish amongst" would sound more natural to your British ears? EEng 17:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Slightly, but having thought about this more it's not simply "distinguished among" that is odd-sounding it's "distinguished among" not preceded by "to" and followed by a list - "little to distinguish among them" or "almost nothing to distinguish among the candidates." are OK sounding, but even the latter is borderline, "almost nothing to distinguish her among the candidates" being less so - "nothing to distinguish her from the other candidates" would be more typical phrasing. Thryduulf (talk) 17:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Replace "distinguish" with "differentiate" and remove "between". Why does the Manual of Style differentiate hyphens (-), en dashes (–), em dashes (—), and minus signs (−)? Bus stop (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Done.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
@Bus stop: that works, good suggestion. 19:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
thanky Bus stop (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm glad this was resolved, but I'd like to state that as far as I'm concerned "distinguish between A, B, C" in such a context means "distinguish between A and B, between A and C, and between B and C". "Among" is only correct when A, B, and C are all involved simultaneously, in my opinion. --142.112.159.101 (talk) 07:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "Why are hyphens (-), en dashes (–), em dashes (—), and minus signs (−), not the same?" For the sake of alternatives? ~ R.T.G 23:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Consolidating place-naming details at MOS:PLACE

Concurrently at WT:CITE and WT:MOSINFOBOX we have multiple threads about problems with place-naming, especially in "formulaic" contexts like citations and infoboxes. It's pretty clear that we have evolved some norms. We also have some written advice, but it's scattered. Some consolidation and clarification is in order, and the purpose of guidelines to is to codify extant best practices, especially when it helps avoid repetitive disputes and even more repetitive cleanup of the same problems at page after page. Since it's been many years and things have not improved (i.e., WP:CREEP is satisfied), I think we do need a summary of the basic principles, and MOS:PLACE would be the proper location for this, with other guidelines just cross-referencing it and (where necessary) adding any context-specific quibbles. We do have a enough crappy place-name handling in running prose as well as in citation parameters, infoboxes, tables, etc. that it is probably worth addressing here, in brief points, and probably with examples. I see this proposed effort as similar to the merging to and overhaul of MOS:BIO about two years ago, which has proven to be very helpful. Such consolidation actually reduces instruction creep and the WP:POLICYFORK problem of various WP:P&G pages contradicting each other or being hard to interpret together.

In the bare majority of cases, place-naming stuff seems to be handled reasonably well (by maybe 75% of editors, and 90% of experienced ones), but in any given long article, there will almost always be several "duh!" cases. In running prose, there's frequently a lot of over-specificity and overlinking. In citations, I mean things like "Oxford: Oxford University Press", and "New York City, NY, US: Penguin Random House", and "Lancaster, Lancs.: Carnegie Publishing" (redundancy, over-specificity, over-linking, abbreviations). And similar stuff in infoboxes and the like: "Born: July 20, 1981, in New York City, New York, United States", or whatever. It would be nice for there to be a lot less of this to clean up, but exactly how to craft the advice will take discussion, drafting, and revision (especially compression). The devil's always in the details in writing guideline text.

We have at least nine problems with place names (and three sub-problems that may be specific to citations and not need be covered here but just in WP:CITE as fine points for that context, with a cross-reference to MOS:PLACE for the main points):

  1. Repetitive constructions (and repetition of entire constructions; see related thread ongoing at WT:MOSINFOBOX). We do not need "Born: April 20, 1975, in Weed, New Mexico, United States" then "Nationality: American" then "Citizenship: American" in an infobox. "Lucknow, Lucknow District, Uttar Pradesh" is pretty pointless and almost obnoxious in most contexts; usually "Lucknow" will do unless "Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh" seems necessary. (If we need to really elaborate about the place, e.g. at its main article, not someone's bio, then write out more context: "Lucknow is the capital city of the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, and is also the administrative headquarters of the eponymous district and division.") Similarly, we need never see "Oxford: Oxford University Press", or "at Oxford University (in Oxford in Oxfordshire)". The need to do something vaguely similar to this only exists when the result might be surprising, not obvious: "London, Ontario", "Kansas City, Missouri"; not "London, England", nor "Kansas City, Kansas". The next point is related but distinct.
  2. Over-specificity of world-famous places: "Tokyo" doesn't need ", Japan" after it. We seem to be making an exception for the first mention in a bio infobox, presumably because it allows injection of "Japan" without a redundant |nationality= parameter making the i-box longer and more tedious. For running text, it's almost always better to do something like "Ryuichi Sakamoto is a Japanese composer ... [important details]. He was born in Tokyo ..."; and "Sanyo is a Japanese electronics company ... [important details]. Sanyo was founded in 1947 in Moriguchi, Osaka, by Toshio Iue ...".
  3. Really excessive over-specificity to include every jurisdiction, like "Lancaster, Lancashire, England, UK". This is pretty much just obnoxious and OCD; the same kind of impulse to do this is behind the terrible habit of trying to fill in every single infobox parameter, with non-notable trivia, just to fill it.
  4. Sometimes under-specificity of comparatively obscure places, e.g. just "Sahaswan" as a birthplace in an infobox or a publisher location in a citation, without any indication this is in India. If we already know the context is India, then (per the above) don't repeat "India", of course.
  5. Over-linking; there is no need to do Cincinnati, Ohio (much less Cincinnati, Ohio) in most contexts, though it seems to be "traditional" to do this in the infobox, at first occurrence (which should usually be the only occurrence in the same i-box unless there's a good reason to mention it again, like that being the death place as well as the birth place – in which case don't re-link it). Link a place name only when really pertinent. It's not the job of our wikitext to link every thing someone might be potentially interested in, but only that which may help them better understand the material they're reading now.
    • Places need never be linked in citations at all, since their purpose there is only to identify the publisher – not to provide some "all about Monrovia, Liberia" educational-material exploration linkage for the reader. (That belongs in the article body and navigation templates, when actually relevant to the subject/context.)
  6. Use of postal abbreviations for sub-national jurisdictions ("NJ", "Wilts.", "ON", "QLD"); we have a rule about that at MOS:POSTABBR, but people keep assuming it doesn't apply to tables, infoboxes, and citations, or they simply haven't seen the rule because it's in an obscure footnote and an MoS subpage.
  7. Being too specific or not specific enough for the context. E.g., "Jane Q. Public is a Texan author and attorney who ..." is too specific. An example of under-specific: "Juanita Q. Publico is a Latin American author and attorney who ...". These aren't overwhelmingly common problems, but may be common enough to address.
    • Another possibly citation-specific issue, the use of just a country or state/county/province as the place ("US: Johnson Publications") which is basically useless and not found in any real-world citation style I know of. Given that every US state, for example, has its own incorporation procedures, doing this can be downright misleading, because there may be multiple US publishers with the same name, just in different publishing markets (US trademark law is remarkably fine-grained). And using something like "California: Johnson Publications" is useless, because no bibliographic database is ever going to identify the publisher that way, but by city.
  8. Constructions we don't use in regular text, like "USA" or "U.K.", but which people keep injecting into tables, infoboxes, and citations. (There are rare exceptions, like when USA is official used as a sporting-country code, or when "U.K." appears in the title of a work, that sort of thing).
  9. Inconsistent presentation. This can range from using different spellings or different-language names (for a place with more than one – and we should always prefer the conventional English-language name, e.g. Munich not München) in different parts of the same article, to describing a city location jurisdictionally in different ways (e.g. by modern British administrative county in one paragraph and by its traditional county in another), to using different phrasing like British-style "Michoacán in Mexico" format in one place and more American-style "Michoacán, Mexico" in another.
    • Another citation-specific issue: seemingly random re-formatting of how publisher locations are given. The convention in most citation styles (including our WP:CS1 and CS2 templates), is "Place: Publisher" format, but our manually-written cites have all kind of stuff like "Publisher (Place)", "Publisher (date). Place", etc. We should advise "Place: Publisher", unless a) the article is consistently and for a long time using a particular citation style that does something different, b) doing it that particular different way is mandatory (not just permissible) in that citation style, and c) there is consensus at the article talk page to retain that citation style despite its confusing differences from our (and the rest of the world's) norms.

The above is kind of a brain-dump; I've not done any word-smithing to try to put this into guideline language. I'm just trying to lay out the points to consider covering. For consolidation, we should also think about merging into MOS:PLACE some of MOS:ABBR#Countries and multinational unions, the first two points of MOS:ABBR#Special considerations, plus geography-related line items from MOS:LINK and from MOS:INFOBOX. Then repeat in compressed form only what is necessary to get the point across at those other pages, and use cross-references to point to MOS:PLACE. (Or, vice-versa, keep the bulk of those details there and cross-reference to them from MOS:PLACE). Summary and cross-referencing (instead of wholesale repetition, or – even worse – putting topically related guidelines in unrelated pages without any cross-refs) helps prevent WP:POLICYFORKs and helps people find and absorb guidelines about the same thing (place-naming, in this case).

PS: While intended for article titles, there may be something(s) relevant and borrowable at WP:NCPLACE, about concision versus redundancy and over-explanation. The WP:PRECISE + WP:CONCISE general principles (in short: be only as precise as is really necessary) applied at WP:NCPLACE#Disambiguation can probably be adapted to in-article usage, too. There isn't a a "write concisely and don't browbeat readres with the obvious" MoS rule, because it's just a general principle of good writing, thus a WP:Common sense and WP:CREEP matter. If the common sense is failing in particular micro-contexts, like excessive blathering on in place-naming, then we should address that particular failure without trying to introduce some big new passage about how to write, nor spawning multiple redundant place-naming micro-rules (about citations, about infoboxes, etc., etc.) in multiple pages. Put it in a central place and cross-reference it, otherwise we're apt to get headache-inducing policy-forks. PS: Speaking of which, I just now better cross-referenced the extant material; e.g. MOS:PLACE now has that shortcut (it lacked one, somehow), and has a see-also link to MOS:POSTABBR (and a relevant section above that also cross-refs it).
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

On the note of multiple discussions talking about location, see also Help talk:CS1#publication-place, place, or location and their proper use. --Izno (talk) 05:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Many of these are constant battles; I can remember the wars we had a decade ago over the use of "Place, State" for U.S. places; except for the largest cities, U.S. common practice really is to include the state name. The guidance at WP:USPLACE is actually working well; we've got an agreed-upon list of cities that we don't use the state name, but otherwise we generally always include it; either because it is redundant (Portland, Maine vs. Portland, Oregon, etc.) or because the place is obscure, and the state provides context (there's only one Minnetonka in the world, Minnetonka, Minnesota, but it's an obscure enough place that it helps the reader to provide context). That only goes so far, however. I would say that we almost never need more than one level of disambiguation at first mention of a place in an article (thus "Minnetonka, Minnesota" is sufficient, but "Minnetonka, Minnesota, United States of America" is not), with the exception being where a third level is strictly necessary (for example, Cleveland, Johnston County, North Carolina, because there are other Clevelands in North Carolina). That's at least my feeling; adding the sovereign country name when there is already a well-known subdivision name is excessive. This applies not just to the U.S., "Aberdeen" is sufficient unless one needed to specify, then "Aberdeen, Scotland", but it is never OK to do "Aberdeen, Scotland, UK". --Jayron32 16:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree that there is a lot of confusion about place naming, especially among new editors who may take their cues mostly from habitual usage, or at best, some random existing Wikipedia articles they happen to be familiar with. Consolidating the guidelines into a single location would make it much easier to understand the motivation and usefulness, and make it easier to learn them. Even for experienced editors, it would be useful to be able to point to a single MOS:PLACE rather than wasting time searching for references to specific guidelines in various scattered and dimly-recalled locations. Reify-tech (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

"She" vs. "it" for ships

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This is a very contentious issue, as evidenced by the neck-and-neck discussion, with neither side gaining a decisive advantage. On the one hand, there are people arguing that using "she" to refer to ships is "sexist" and/or "outdated". Some commonly-used manuals of style and other institutions in multiple countries that have English as their primary language have chosen to change their usage to "it".
On the other hand, we have people arguing that using "she" is still common in many reliable sources, including ship-specific resources and organizations (also in multiple countries and with English as their primary language). Some have argued that our current policies and guidelines prevent us from changing this one, and others have argued that we do not set our policies and guidelines into stone and that we change them as consensus dictates.
Everything on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view, and be verifiable, without expressing preference for one side or another, or one viewpoint over another. Based on the discussion and on the arguments presented by both sides, it seems this issue is still very much in flux outside of Wikipedia. There are trends, but no specific way of referring to ships can be definitively pointed to as a standard. I do not see there being consensus at this time to change this MOS guideline. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

In the spirit of the essay Wikipedia:Use modern language, I propose standardizing on "it" for ships instead of "she". This would mean removing the gender-neutral language exception at MOS:GNL and the copies at WP:GNL#Ships, WP:SHE4SHIPS, and WP:SHIPPRONOUNS. Rationale:

  • "She" for ships sounds "old-fashioned"[12][13], or "quaint or poetic"[14].
  • "She" for ships is uncommon and is becoming less common in the sources we cite. It is not found in mainstream media, and even the nautical publication Lloyds List abandoned "she" two decades ago.[15]
  • "She" for ships is disrecommended by reputable usage authorities, including The Chicago Manual of Style, The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, The Associated Press Stylebook, and even the U.S. Navy style guide, which includes the AP Stylebook by reference.
  • "She" for ships is confusing, especially for readers with English as a second language. It violates the general English rule that inanimate objects are referred to by "it" because English has no grammatical gender. It is even more confusing when referring to ships with masculine names (like the USS John McCain).
  • "It" for ships is already an accepted Wikipedia style and does not have any of these disadvantages.

-- Beland (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I have notified WP:MILHIST and WP:SHIPS.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I posted a link on WP:CENT, and SMcCandlish has notified the Village Pump as well as some WikiProjects. Wug·a·po·des​ 19:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I put an RfC tag on it, too, since people wanted this to be an RfC and it was already serving as one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Detail, solved
"accepmoted" is not a word, but for some wikilawyering reason it is not permitted to improve readability of nom's formal motivation [16]. -DePiep (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Whoops, fixed. Yeah, it's not allowed to put words in other editors' mouths, despite the best of intentions, but thanks for pointing that out. -- Beland (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Survey

  • Support "it". This makes sense to me. I'm always in favour of a more modern, plain-English style. Popcornduff (talk) 14:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
    Extended discussion moved to #Discussion of Popcornduff's !vote – Levivich 22:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Go slowly on this... and expect a LOT of pushback. While the style guides may favor “it”, “she” is still more commonly used in real life. Blueboar (talk) 14:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose. Absolutely not. Why go against common English usage? Nothing "old-fashioned" about it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
    Extended discussion moved to #Discussion of Necrothesp's !vote – Levivich 22:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose. Never come across an RS we use on ships articles which doesn't use the feminine form Lyndaship (talk) 14:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
    Extended discussion moved to #Discussion of Lyndaship's !vote – Levivich 22:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • We should use the pronouns the subject prefers, and if the subject hasn't expressed a preference use singular they. EEng 14:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
    Next time we'll have to remember to ask the ship their preference! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
    Nowadays more and more vessels are openly transoceanic, and pronoun choice requires special sensitivity in these cases. EEng 16:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. As someone whose mother tongue is not English, I can tell you that referring to ship as 'she' is not confusing at all. Ships also referred to as 'she' in foreign languages. Moreover, the statement implies that all foreigners are dumb and stupid and I have an issue with such a blanket statement. Since it is already optional to use either 'she' or 'it', the whole matter should be decided by people who actually spend time and resources writing such articles as seen fit. The usage of 'she' is historical and used in most sourcing materials in XIX or XX centuries. It is also plain, obvious and unambiguous.Crook1 (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
    Extended discussion moved to #Discussion of Crook1's !vote – Levivich 22:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: We can't base our MoS entirely on how external sources write. For a start, sources usually write in different ways (some RSs use "she", some don't). Besides, we have to create a style that suits our own needs and goals, and is consistent across articles and Wikipedia's general tone of voice. As far as I know WP:RS is not a requirement to reflect the language choices of sources, only facts. Popcornduff (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
    Extended discussion moved to #Discussion of Popcornduff's comment – Levivich 22:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. Plenty of good reasons why, given already. I also strongly defend use of the definite article in front of a ship's name as well. There is nothing archaic about it or difficult to understand. People who read the Wiki understand what they're reading, though some here think they are morons. We should retain it, If for no other reason, than to vary the script, rather than emulsifying it into bland porridge which is what you mean to do with it. I view this motion as a form of troll baiting and yet another reason why I should never have started on the project. The English language is fluid and this sort of thing seeks to limit it. This sort of style creationism is akin to original research. It's not the Wiki's job to change the language. I am here to put something constructive into articles not waste my energies on this. Broichmore (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
    • I respect your opinion on this usage question, but I don't feel that accusing me of "troll baiting" is compatible with Wikipedia:Assume good faith. My aim was to have Wikipedia keep up with a documented language change, in what you rightly point out is a fluid language. I realize this is a controversial question, but we have to be able to have discussions about controversial subjects now and again, and to do so in a civil manner. -- Beland (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
      • What dismays and depresses me, is that the language took over 2000 years to get to this point, and yet topics like this, surface here, repeatedly (it seems) ad nauseum. This not a documented language change, far from it, there is no governing body and we are the last people on the planet that should be it, I refuse to sit back and watch style changes promoted by fifty cent and whoever he represents be allowed to diminish the language. Broichmore (talk) 05:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure what you mean by "this isn't a documented language change". Doesn't the evidence from Google ngrams, style guides, and various news media document that? Are you disagreeing that it is happening, or that it should happen? For people that think "she" for ships is sexist (and has been for hundreds of years while women had no say in this question), and those who would prefer less complicated rules for how to use pronouns, this change is arguably a major improvment. Language change is an ongoing and largely unstoppable process, which happens for better or worse. -- Beland (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. (1) Looking at the essay WP:MODERNLANG, it says, for example: "... Note: Although they can safely be replaced with among and while, amongst and whilst are still commonly used in British English." So, if a form is becoming archaic, but is still in use, it is OK to use in Wikipedia. (2) To what extent is "she" (for ships) archaic? Lots of actual and implied cites from both sides of the argument here - so I suggest it has some way to go before it could be labelled archaic. As a cited form, I would add Practical Boat Owner, a widely respected magazine that uses "she" (e.g.[17]) - I suspect that doing otherwise would lose them readers. (3) The fact that both forms are to be found outside Wikipedia seems to be a good case for maintaining the status quo within Wikipedia - i.e. both "she" and "it" are acceptable, but you may not swap an article to the other form. (4) Is anyone offended by "she" for a ship? I don't know, but if they are, then they should be offended by (in Latin) mensa (f) (a table) or (in French) la plume (f) (the pen). (4) The argument: "but language evolves". This statement is correct, but it should be allowed to evolve at its natural rate. That allows us and future generations to understand reasonably fully William Shakespeare and the King James Bible, and with no difficulty William Wordsworth, Charles Dickens, Thomas Hardy, and many others. I do not believe that the essay on which this proposal is based seeks to unnaturally accelerate language change. However, I think the proposal does. Therefore the proposal should be rejected. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
    Extended discussion moved to #Discussion of ThoughtIdRetired's !vote – Levivich 22:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Look, let's get one thing out of the way — saying that an argument is ILIKEIT or IDONTLIKEIT is not a refutation; not on style issues. Although we will never go too far from what other publications are doing, there is no "reliable source" for what our style should be. It is always, at some level, going to come down to preference.
    Popcornduff is "always in favour of a more modern, plain-English style", and is absolutely entitled to that preference and to push for WP to move closer to it. But others are just as entitled to favor a more traditional, elegant style, and to militate for that preference.
    One of the things Wikipedia does best, given this sort of dispute, is simply not choose between them. I think that's what we should do here. --Trovatore (talk) 22:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
    Extended discussion moved to #Discussion of Trovatore's !vote – Levivich 22:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The spirit of WP:ENGVAR applies—a months-long battle forcing editors to change their ways would not benefit the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
    Who is proposing a months-long battle? – Levivich 16:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
    If this is enshrined in MOS, gnomes will systematically edit articles they have never previously seen and replace pronouns. When that happened for bird titles (replacing "Blue Tit" with "blue tit") there was a months-long battle which drove off some of the editors who maintain bird articles. Some say that's a good result, while I'm in the it-ain't-worth-it camp. It is inevitable that sources will swing to it and when that happens, Wikipedia should follow. I haven't seen the evidence that we are there yet. Johnuniq (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Question! Given the research editors have done in response to this question, it looks like there may be a strong divide between American usage, which seems to be against "she" for ships (haven't seen an exception so far) and British/Commonwealth usage, where the practice is disfavored in some general-audience publications but continues in some important ones like major broadcasters. How would editors feel about keeping the two varieties but more closely following national practice? Specifically, I mean changing the advice to say that articles written in American English should use "it" for ships, but articles in other varieties of English are free to use either variety as long as they do it consistently and aren't changed back and forth arbitrarily? -- Beland (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
    Extended discussion moved to #Discussion of Beland's question – Levivich 22:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - there is no need to change the accepted convention that it is the writer of the article's choice on whether to use "she" or "it". If you want more ship articles written in the neuter, then there are many thousands of ships that have redlinks and need articles writing on them. The solution is at your fingertips. Mjroots (talk) 03:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
    Extended discussion moved to #Discussion of Mjroots's !vote – Levivich 01:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Either "she" or "it" is acceptable. Best left to editorial discretion, with discussion on Talk pages. I don't even think this is a question to be addressed here. Style guides concern themselves with the image a publication wants to project. A publication that wants to cultivate a certain readership will kowtow to the specific political concerns that they think will appeal to a certain readership. Wikipedia is unlike these publications. Wikipedia is agnostic on all political tendencies. And we are a collaborative project. We don't want to fetter our editors. An article compliant with WP:NPOV can't be faulted on the basis that some editors read political offense into particular words, in this case pronouns. Bus stop (talk) 05:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
    It seems like you are arguing that Wikipedia shouldn't have a manual of style at all, since you think that style guides are just for "kowtowing" to specific political concerns. If so, that argument is completely out of scope here. The Wikipedia manual of style proscribes a consistent set of language, layout, and formatting to making Wikipedia easier and more intuitive, and does not have any ulterior motive. There's no political concern that makes Wikipedia use "US" instead of "USA", "c." instead of "ca.", "No. 1" instead of "#1", etc. Similarly with ship names, a vast majority of the supports of this proposal only address jargon and common usage, not any political concerns. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 17:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
    You say "It seems like you are arguing that Wikipedia shouldn't have a manual of style at all". No, not at all. It sounds like you haven't read what I wrote. Wikipedia should definitely have a manual of style. Bus stop (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
    Wikipedia doesn't want to appeal to readers with no specific politics or sensitivities, it wants to appeal to readers of all politics and sensitivities. Where possible, we avoid usage that would be distracting to readers on one side of a dispute just as carefully as the other, for whatever the dispute of the week is. Wikipedia's "image" is neutrality and its "appeal" is its informativeness. This isn't an attempt to express solidarity with a particular politics, as might a UK newspaper, it's an attempt to get out of the way of receiving factual information. -- Beland (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
    Beland—you mention Ella Tennant's opinion many times on this page. Should Tennant's opinion that this usage is sexist have bearing on our manual of style? Bus stop (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
    Yes and no. No, in the sense that even if no one thought this usage was sexist, a majority of editors seem to agree and some dictionaries (and maybe Google Ngrams) document that it's old-fashioned, and that should decide the issue. Yes, in the sense that she is one of many readers who find this usage to be sexist. Based on the proportion of editors' responses, it seems like that's a minority of readers, though I expect nearly all of them also find it old-fashioned. But it's also not a small enough minority to be negligible. "Women deserve to be treated as equals to men" is also a core conviction and a basic human right, and if readers perceive Wikipedia is violating that, it is both a major distraction compared to other possible style choices and undermines the perception of Wikipedia as neutral. Even if I personally didn't agree with the conclusion that the usage is sexist, I would find the argument that a significant minority of editors do to be persuasive, and that should decide the issue. For editors who don't agree that this usage is old-fashioned, the some-other-people-find-it-sexist argument might change their opinion on the style question. I cited Tennant because you asked for evidence specifically that women actually do tend to find this usage sexist, and her interview is good evidence of that. Her explanation also shows that the argument that this is sexist is at least rational and some intelligent people who have thought deeply about it agree with it, which makes the case that the opinion shouldn't be dismissed as obviously crazy, even if a majority of people either don't find it persuasive or don't find it important enough to think about. -- Beland (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – It is shamefully sexist to continue this gendered language for ships. But anyone who dares to challenge the entitled old men who rule in parts of WP will be utterly savaged. They really need to be taken on, but it must be a concerted push by people who want to follow the increasing acknowledgement in English-language style that gendered pronoun usage is part of the sexist male pushback. We should not give a damn what the British or whatever navy says it wants. Tony (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
    It might be sexist, but are we here to right great wrongs? (Before someone misunderstands—I find it hilarious that anyone would claim that she/her/hers is "sexist" when used in relation to ships. There is no sexism in that usage whatsoever. Furthermore Wikipedia should not be kowtowing to political correctness. And I also find it pretty arrogant of some to think they are going to "correct" the English language in this way. The English language uses the pronouns she/her/hers to refer to ships. The English language also uses the terms it/its to refer to ships. That latitude is an integral part of the English language. It is arrogant and compulsive that some editors fancy themselves crafters of a new language. Both forms are acceptable. Ships can be referred to as feminine and ships can be referred to as neuter.) Bus stop (talk) 06:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
    The only shameful thing is how few people can distinguish between grammatical gender and biological sex. Calling a ship "she" relates to its historic gender and has very little to do with sex or sexism. As someone has pointed out elsewhere you can't speak French (for example) without ascribing a gender to biologically neuter objects; are all Frenchmen irredeemable and offensive sexists? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
    I don't think it is sexist at all. "Techopedia" writes "A male connector is a type of connector with one or more uncovered or exposed pieces of conductor which can be inserted into a female connector to ensure a physical connection." Mature adults and even immature children can appreciate that language borrows analogously from related concepts. Maleness and femaleness spill over into unrelated areas where descriptiveness is called for. This is not necessarily sexist. I don't see how referring to a ship as "she" is sexist at all. Where is the sexism in referring to a ship as "she"? Bus stop (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
    @Bus stop and Martin of Sheffield: No one's talking about connectors (where male and female refer to shapes). Referring to a ship as "she" is called metaphorical gender (not grammatical gender which is different), and it is done to express affection for an object by personifying it. That part isn't sexist. The sexist part is that only "she" is used, as it is assumed that only heterosexual men have relationships to ships. Otherwise, we would call ships "he" or "she". Kaldari (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support it – Most of my life it has seemed to me that "she" is both old-fashioned and sexist. Most modern style guides seem to be against using she, and so should ours. Dicklyon (talk) 06:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Use it. (But we need not add a rule saying this, just remove the pseudo-rules calling for she, which I think are in three different pages here but were inserted without any consensus record we can find in the talk page archives). We've been over this many times before, seemingly about every year or so (mostly at article talk pages). I concur with various respondents above (and in every previous round of this recurrent discussion, and now below) that she is an archaic, pretentious affectation and rather sexist (or often perceived as such), as well as peculiar to a few narrow spheres of writing (and outside them to a few particular publishers who like to do some old-fashioned things as a branding mechanism), to the extent it's still used at all any longer beyond historical fiction. "Well, sailors and navy people do it" = WP:SSF. And we've also now seen sources disproving that navy people always do it, including in the UK where someone below asserts without evidence that she is a norm and it uncommon.

    Look, WP does not care what specialists do when writing for other specialists, because WP isn't a specialist publication, and it is not possible to account for every stylistic whim of every specialization, or WP would basically be unreadable, and editors would spend almost all their time fighting for control over articles that are within the scopes of multiple specialties. This is covered in the MoS FAQ at the top of this talk page.

    We developed an in-house style guide for very good reasons, and it follows contemporary, mainstream, formal English for very good reasons. WP isn't written in salty dialect, headache-inducing jargon, bleeding-edge slang, or quaint Victorianisms. When other major style guides are in favor of it, then so is WP, for the same reason we don't write ain't, refer to problems as ornery, conclude that positive reviews make a movie badass, introduce a quotation with sayeth, or refer to a hiccup as a synchronous diaphragmatic flutter. Maybe more to the sexism point and the inappropriateness of writing the encyclopedia in the in-group lingo of one of our subjects, WP does not refer to the girlfriend of a male rapper or a Hell's Angels biker as his "bitch". It does not matter that he does and that his fellows do, or even that hip-hop and biker magazines might also do it.

    Soon or later it just has to sink in that WP follows topical sources for facts pertaining to the topic not for how to write about the the facts and the topic for an encyclopedic audience. How can we still be having this kind of discussion after 18 years? And with the same few people who absolutely know better by now, but for some reason just will not give up trying to make WP write like insider publications, no matter how many times the answer is "no". It just boggles the mind.
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC); rev'd. 18:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

    PS: We should support it also from a WP:CREEP viewpoint: There simply is insufficient justification to make a special exception for ships. This RfC is not about making a new rule, its about removing a bogus one that we have in at least three places, and apparently inserted just to make two wikiprojects happier. Going the it route will also be more consonant with all the rest of MoS and with WP editing practices; the common thread running through the entire MoS is do not make an exception to a general rule unless that exception is overwhelmingly dominant across the reliable sources that are independent of the topic. That's just not the case here. The she style is still somewhat common (though decreasingly rapidly), and it is not dominant except in the materials put out in specific topical sources.
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:07, 28 November 2019 (UTC); rev'd. 18:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Extended discussion moved to #Discussion of SMcCandlish's !vote – Levivich 01:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support it. These days, when I hear non-mariners referring to ships as she, my general impression is that they are trying too hard to sound "in the know". It's not at all wrong to use it, it doesn't sound awkward or affected, and if it offends fewer people, I personally don't see the harm in it. CThomas3 (talk) 09:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support it There is zero benefit using "she" for inanimate non-sentient vehicles. Wikipedia should strive to being as objective and neutral as possible. "She" and "it" are not equal whatsoever in this case.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 09:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support it as the dominant pattern for the past 80 years. Doremo (talk) 10:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - support status quo. It is clear that there is still a significant amount of published writing using "she" (about a third, if I have understood the overall Ngram correctly, and not on an inexorable downward trend) - indeed limiting to "English Ficton", to reduce any dominance of specialist writers on shipping, gives an even more marked picture in recent years. There is no basis here for suggesting that the users of "she" has shrunk to a few inflexible old salts. I think that the present guidance in WP:SHE4SHIPS (either is OK, no mixed usage, and no reverting without talk-page consultation) still serves WP well, even if feels a little awkward sometimes, no doubt from editors with either preference. Davidships (talk) 14:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support it. She is outdated and sexist, a vestige of the days when women were not considered to be fully people. Sources have abandoned the usage, except apparently in Britain and some areas of the nautical community. Wikipedia is for an international audience and should follow the prevalent modern usage. – Levivich 16:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
    Extended discussion moved to #Discussion of Levivich's !vote – Levivich 22:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Follow the sources. If most of the sources referencing a ship use "she", use "she". If most use "it", use "it". (This may in practice have results such as Masem's suggestion, but in any case follow our sources' lead, as we do in everything.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support it per general agreement among contemporary style guides. Tdslk (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Use it per above, per the Google Books corpus, and per the Chicago Manual of Style. English lost grammatical gender over 600 years ago and, outside of pedants, gendering inanimate objects is uncommon in everyday English. A search of the Google Books corpus shows that usage of "ship and her" has been steadily decreasing for the past century and the gendered variant has not been the majority use since 1940. For books using the phrase "ship and its" or "ship and her", the non-gendered variant is the overwhelming majority in published works, with 70% using "it" since 1980. Modern style guides recommend using "it" rather than "she". The Chicago Manual of Style (17 ed.) gives the following example in 8.116 (bolding added) "USS Enterprise (CVN-65) was already on its way to the Red Sea." and gives explicit advice in 8.118: "When a pronoun is used to refer to a vessel, the neuter it or its (rather than she or her) is preferred." I see no real reason to encourage the use of "she" to refer to vessels when it is not common English usage and is not recommended by other style guides. No reason other than preference and anecdotal evidence has been given to support the continued use of "she" which is not persuasive. (edit conflict) Wug·a·po·des​ 21:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Both forms are in common use. Follow the principle at WP:RETAIN. Not sexist in any way - historically the sailor respects the ship and treats it like a wife because ultimately his life depends on it.  Stepho  talk  23:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
    This archaic reasoning assumes only men can be sailors or captains.--WaltCip (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
    No, it doesn't assume "only men can be sailors or captains." The only inbuilt assumption is that women like death by drowning no more nor less than men appreciate death by drowning. Bus stop (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
    If women can be sailors and treat the ship like a spouse their life depends on or like a spouse in general, then ships should be "he" just as often as "she". Men can also have other men as spouses. -- Beland (talk) 06:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support using "it". English hasn't had grammatical gender for centuries. Any argument along those lines is a red herring. The continued but minority use of feminine pronouns for ships is just a bit of poetic style that is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Ships are inanimate objects. Inanimante objects in English use the pronoun "it". No reason to make an exception based on poetic tradition. oknazevad (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose as this personification of ships is still common in British English, and to rule against it would be to contradict WP:ENGVAR and MOS:TIES for ships with strong ties with the UK. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
    I'm not sure this is an ENGVAR issue. Using gender-neutral pronouns to refer to ships is reasonably common in the UK ([18], [19], [20] (mixed, "she" is mostly the quotes), [21], [22]). So in reality both "she" and "it" are considered valid usage in British English: one of them is increasingly viewed by some as potentially offensive, one isn't. I personally don't understand why we would consciously choose the former when we have an equally correct and uncontroversial (okay, less controversial) option available. CThomas3 (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
    I think the question is: what is wrong with referring to ships as "she" and "her"? Just because we are uptight about sexism is no reason to believe sexism exists in this language. It really doesn't matter if an article has a British-English orientation or an American-English orientation. And it doesn't matter what form sources are using. The language (English) has variation. Even in the same article one sentence can refer to a ship as "she" and another sentence can refer to the same ship as "it". The language allows for variation. Some of us are imagining problems where none exist, such as the unfounded notion that there is something sexist about the pronouns "she" and "her" for ships. We should just use the full language as it exists and not narrow our options. Bus stop (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
    You’re absolutely right, that is the question. But saying that some of us are imagining a problem where none exists is a pretty big presupposition. I don’t happen to be offended by it either, but I appreciate the fact that clearly some are. And because there’s a valid.choice available to us to alleviate that potential problem that does not impact the prose in the slightest, why not take advantage of it? Certainly quoted passages can still use “she”, but for encyclopedic prose I don’t think using “she” is a marked improvement. CThomas3 (talk) 03:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - support status quo where the choice is left to the editor regardless of which pronoun is used in the sources. Tupsumato (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support "it" per nom and the sexism rationale. Sdkb (talk) 08:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support "it" per nom. Modern, and plain general language against archaic industry jargon. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support "it". As others have outlined, using "she" has many possible disadvantages. Sure, maybe the opposers are correct and these disadvantages are minor – but there's already a neutral alternative with no downsides, so why not use it? – Teratix ₵ 10:16, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support "it" I did some research into this unsure why this was a discussion and apparently there's a current spat into what gender ships should have. My research, specifically "what is gramatically correct in this situation" entirely supports "it" (this is from 2010, for instance). We should not be encouraging improper grammar usage because anachronised jargon demands it - he and she are for people, it is for objects. SportingFlyer T·C 11:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Wanting to further elaborate on my support - Google searches below support that "she/her" for ships has never been technically gramatically correct even though it was once in common use, belonging to a metaphorical class of gendering. It's also a piece of jargon which is increasingly falling out of use as the language modernises as evidenced below by my Google searches. Few if any news organisations use "she" to refer to vessels anymore, the ones that do either appear to be in Britain or use "she" only in a poetic sense unsuited for editing an encyclopaedia. Easy support for a question I hadn't probably ever thought about before yesterday. SportingFlyer T·C 10:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The modern fashion is that gender pronouns are a matter of choice and so we should not have a prescriptive rule. See also WP:CREEP. Andrew D. (talk) 11:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
    Extended discussion moved to #Discussion of Andrew D.'s !vote – Levivich 22:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support "it" - Don't even need to think twice about this one.--WaltCip (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support it. The majority of style guides show a preference for "it" and it's inline with common English referring to inanimate objects. El Millo (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose "she" is very commonly used in sources. It is obvious from the votes that the community is fairly evenly split on this matter, as it has been in previous discussions. Proponents just need to accept current guidance that either is permitted with the usual provisos. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:48, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, to my eyes and ears the use of "it" for a ship is jarring and indicative of a poor command of English - but I wouldn't want to force the use of "she" on those who struggle with it. I do not see any need to force one particular usage across the encyclopaedia, we cope with differing varieties of English everyday. DuncanHill (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - In my home area, she is used for ships, as ships are considered to be (like females) unpredictable. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
    Shit like this is why people think it's sexist and why editors think people arguing for it's continued use are being disingenuous. Maybe women are unpredictable to you because you liken them to inanimate objects without feeling or free will? Wug·a·po·des​ 03:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support it. Should be common sense—we should follow the standard usage in modern reliable sources and style guides. Our articles that use "she" look antiquated and conspicuous. Usage in other languages, which is one argument that has been brought up in favor of "she", is not relevant because this is the English Wikipedia. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
    Extended discussion moved to #Discussion of Mx. Granger's !vote – Levivich 22:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Note that when the Scottish Maritime Museum decided earlier this year to start using "it" to refer to vessels, it was hugely reported in the British media and caused quite a stir ([23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]). That surely proves that "she" is still overwhelmingly used for vessels in Britain and attempts to use "it" are considered unusual. Our common usage policy and WP:ENGVAR therefore mandates that we do not enforce some misguided attempt to standardise usage on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
    Extended discussion moved to #Discussion of Necrothesp's comment – Levivich 22:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support it I have looked over the comments above by several people supporting each side. and found the "it" argument to be more convincing. I endorse most of the supporting statements from the votes above, especially the ngram analysis showing the clear trend. --Jayron32 14:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - according to tradition (and superstition) "she" relates to a mother or goddess who guides and protects the ship and its crew. Atsme Talk 📧 18:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
    Extended discussion moved to #Discussion of Atsme's !vote – Levivich 22:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support it – gender-neutral language is the obvious choice for an international project. Archon 2488 (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support it mainly per Wugapodes and the countless dubunking by SportingFlyer. However, I think the language used in the MOS could be that using she "should be generally avoided", but not expressly prohibited, if there are concerns about the wholesale changing of thousands of articles across Wikipedia. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 19:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support it I've been following the discussion with interest because I recently did an article on a ship and wasn't sure which to use. I found the arguments in favor of "it" more convincing. (Edit to add): Lloyd's List (British, one of the world's oldest continuously-running journals, having provided weekly shipping news in London as early as 1734) announced in 2002 they would use "it" rather than she/her. Schazjmd (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support it per the excellent points made above about modern usage and our need to reflect it. Parabolist (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose per MOS:VAR. I think the same about this as I do about BC vs BCE, the "committed" vs "died by" suicide issue, and AmEng vs British spellings: both are widely used, and there's no need to mandate consistency. Cheers, gnu57 22:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support it per modern usage and style guides, and to improve consistency across Wikipedia. buidhe 22:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support it I find all the reasons given by Beland compelling. And I'll add one more reason to the list: removing a special case makes our guidelines just a little bit simpler and more consistent. MOS:GNL could be made 50% shorter if we remove the "...except for ships" paragraph. Colin M (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support it: It's odd to refer to inanimate objects as "she" or "he". We don't do it for anything else. There is a history of sexism in the word choice and evidentially it's still there. Style in Wikipedia should reflect the choices made by the wider culture and the use of "she" to refer to ships has decreased significantly, especially in generalist sources. Why would we choose to use old fashioned language when better options are available? SchreiberBike | ⌨  01:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The "right great wrongs" essay is about editing articles to focus on certain facts. I think everyone can agree Wikipedia's presentation of facts should be neutral, not trumpeting the righteous, whoever that might be in an editor's personal option. Nor should it adopt neologisms in the name of social justice. But in this case, Wikipedia would be avoiding offending some people by following a mainstream trend by subtly dropping one of two styles it already allows. That hardly seems radical or unwise if it's distracting some readers. -- Beland (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support "it", because "she" smacks of jargon to me. I appreciate the pun by Rhododendrites above, as well. Enterprisey (talk!) 09:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose As a speaker of US English, a language with no grammatical gender, T find the whole gender issue for words unbearably confusing in my efforts to end my status as a functional monoglot. Why would the word "bridge" have a gender and why on Earth would a bridge be masculine in Spanish and feminine in German? If there were a river crossing at an imaginary border between Spain and Germany, would the bridge need to undergo a gender change at its midpoint at the border? Sure, the use of "she" to refers to boats is anachronistic and often comes off as forced to me; "Isn't she a beauty?" But the gendered usage is a longstanding tradition and no ship has ever expressed an issue with being designated with the female gender or indicated am alternative preferred pronoun. Until we have far clearer consensus against the gendered usage or the ships start speaking for themselves, let's keep this quaint gender designation. Alansohn (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
    Extended discussion moved to #Discussion of Alansohn's !vote – Levivich 01:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose mandating “it”, or “she”. Oppose revisionism of English to make English obey simpler rules. Follow the sources, even if this mean following a change in style for old ships to new ships. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
    @SmokeyJoe: English doesn't have "rules" (except in the strict descriptive linguistics sense; e.g. you can't meaningfully say "To I store going am", because the language doesn't have a word order that flexible); English has nothing like the Academie française to set formal rules for the language. More importantly, see WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and WP:GREATWRONGS. WP having its own style guide to make our content consistent, formal, and contemporary (and unlikely to offend people for no important reason), and to reduce recurrent editorial strife about "perennial" nit-picks like this one, has nothing to do with activism for "revisionism of English to make English obey" anything, which is an external-to-WP idea. You trying to sping this RfC in such straw-man terms, however, is language-related activism, just from a hardcore traditionalism viewpoint. It's not appropriate here and doesn't really pertain to the actual RfC question, which is about what editors should do here on WP (only here) for our audience (only our audience). Has nothing to do with how English "should" be used by others elsewhere. Finally, we are following the sources when we note that off-site style guides mostly advise it not she. You're engaging in the WP:Specialized-style fallacy, the incorrect supposition that topically limited sources (e.g. navy materials, or websites about the merchant marines) are somehow reliable sources for how to write English for a global, general encyclopedia audience, when they are in fact simply reliable sources for facts about navies and merchant marines the ships they use.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:07, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
    SMcCandlish, you are not feeling like the usual you. English has no rules? “Except”? The proposal is to “standardise”, which I read as “make a rule”. English has no Academie française, no, but Wikipedia has a MOS, which would like to be that. Follow the sources, I am glad you agree, but external style guides are not sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
    That's the strangest statement I think I've ever seen on Wikipedia. I'm skeptical a single other person reading this page doesn't understand that major reference works on English usage are the most reliable sources on English usage.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose any one umbrella pronoun for ships on all of Wikipedia. Remember that cultures are different, and in Australia/UK, we do commonly use "she" to refer to ships; I understand that the US does not, so perhaps either "she" or "it" for British English and "it" for US English might be justified instead. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 23:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
    Extended discussion moved to #Discussion of TheDragonFire300's !vote – Levivich 01:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support it. "She" is old-fashioned and sexist, and (per the provided evidence, via Google n-gram for instance) on its way out. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral - using "she" may be considered sexist (see, eg, The Guardian: And all who sail in … it? The language row over 'female' ships but "she" appears to be the commonly used pronoun. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
    DannyS712, how is that different from "ain't is a commonly used word"? Using she for ships and other inanimate things is not actually common in contemporary sources, especially those that are topically broad and intended for a general audience. We really don't care what salty dogs like to write when communicating to other maritime people in specialized materials, especially when an increasing number of style guides advise against this she thing, and fewer and fewer mainstream publishers (news, etc.) continue the practice.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:07, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
    @SMcCandlish: I have only seen "she" used, so my instinct was to prefer using "she", but am neutral for exactly the reasons you bring up. --DannyS712 (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose MOS:GNL states Ships may be referred to using either feminine forms ("she", "her", "hers") or neuter forms ("it", "its"). Either usage is acceptable, but each article should be internally consistent and employ one or the other exclusively. It also states that unless there is substantial reason to do so (emphasis mine), whatever usage already exists in an article should not be changed. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 06:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
    How does simply quoting the current guideline bear on the question of changing it? EEng 07:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
    I was going to say the same thing. Jkudlick seems to have missed the point.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:07, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
    @EEng and SMcCandlish: What is the substantial reason for this change? I am not opposed to changing the MOS to require "it" for any future articles, but any current articles should remain as is unless there is an absolute need to do so. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 00:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
    @Jkudlick: When either of two styles are [sic] acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. That would apply if this discussion was about changing a specific article's style from she to it, which is not the case. This discussion is about deciding whether those two currently acceptable styles will continue to be acceptable or if one of them will no longer be. El Millo (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
    Right. And why on earth ask something like "what is the substantial reason?" when this entire thread is a debate about that obvious reason and how substantial it is? I get the distinct impression that Jkudlick saw that this thread existed, thought "I prefer she" and came here to just vote without reading the actual RfC or anything in it (except, I suppose, the ping to brings him back here). His initial and later comments show complete unawareness of the nature of the discussion or its content.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No reader is going to be that offended or surprised whichever version they encounter. We can safely let the authors of articles decide which they prefer; they have earned that right. Jmchutchinson (talk) 22:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support not referring to cars as "she" and "her" on Wikipedia, regardless of modern gender issues. No, don't kick the wheel either, thanks xP ~ R.T.G 06:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • NOTE:WP:TONE says, "Articles and other encyclopedic content should be written in a formal tone. Standards for formal tone vary a bit depending upon the subject matter but should usually match the style used in Featured- and Good-class articles in the same category. Encyclopedic writing has a fairly academic approach, while remaining clear and understandable. Formal tone means that the article should not be written using argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon". Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Information_style_and_tone says, "Two styles, closely related and not mutually exclusive, tend to be used for Wikipedia articles. The tone, however, should always remain formal, impersonal, and dispassionate." It is easy to imagine this stuff is just some stuffy old rules for rules sake, but these rules do improve readability. One of the enemies of dissemination in this environment, believe it or not, is poetic license. Formalise the consideration of your vehicle as a her? Are you joking? You are joking aren't you? How about using words like yip and yah when writing about horses? ~ R.T.G 08:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
There is talk below about rivalling Google, but it is Yahoo! we can rival best. Steady as she goes there, Betsy, there's a good girl. ~ R.T.G 11:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - ships have a long history of being referred to in the feminine. Possicause the largely male sailors liked to think that their vessel had a life of its own and the behaviour was often contrary. Whatever. There's centuries of tradition, it is strong usage in some communities, we're just going to have an almighty row if this becomes wikilaw. Perhaps WP:RETAIN might be in order; either usage is fine, and nobody is going to be confused. --Pete (talk) 06:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose to only allowing one or the other per WP:RETAIN - referring to ships as female is common practice in many places around the world. Wikipedia's purpose is not to change things, only to record them. Advocating change in language like this, without real-world usage that would make such change valid, falls into soapbox territory. We are also not here to right great wrongs - if the nomenclature is sexist, we cannot deal with it as we alone cannot change how lanugage evolves. If anything, we should just allow both to be used, like we already do with date formats. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 22:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Several of those style guides are attached with organizations with known biases. They also likely do not reflect public opinion, due to the limitations of data collection - and collected data is used to create these style guides. Therefore, unless someone turns up evidence suggesting that people in real life overwhelmingly support using 'it' versus 'she', we should either keep things as is or just make it an option to choose between referring to a ship as 'she' or 'it'. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 23:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't the fact that some dictionaries mark this usage as "old fashioned" be good evidence about how this is perceived in real life? -- Beland (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @Kirbanzo: Would you care to label the style guide sources with their "known biases"? I don't attribute any particular biases to any of them, but I'm not particularly familiar with the British press, and I'm curious if other editors would agree with your perceptions. -- Beland (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The Guardian is the most obvious one, since they are known to have a left-leaning bias. Some have also argued that the BBC and New York Times also have a left-leaning bias, though not all of the arguments against them are credible. The rest appear neutral, at least to me. I tend to find that people on the left side of the political divide these days bandwagon on terms they deem the most non-offensive - even if the predecessor of it has no actual negative connotations. While I do agree that 'it' is acceptable, since ships are not living things (yet - depends on how things go with AI), we shouldn't use style guides to represent populations at large since, well, the amount of people working at the groups that make these style guides don't represent the average person. There is also the aforementioned issue of some style guides having potential biases. In short, there's no clear preference at this time, thus it is a bad idea to make a decision at least. It could end up being a change editors may resent in the future.
  • Well, if there are style guides from right-leaning media that would balance out the list, that would be informative. If the argument is "only cranky people on the far left use this language", the inclusion of outlets with disputed bias seem to indicate the usage has more or less reached the political center, if it is a strict left-to-right progression. New terminology comes from both the left and right, though - for example, conservative media in the U.S. were using homicide bomber for a while, though it never went mainstream enough to become a permanent part of the language. Wikipedia has already recognized the transition from "steward" and "stewardess" to "flight attendant", which would be another candidate for the "it came from the Left" theory. The fact that some dictionaries mark "she" for ships as "old fashioned" does seem like solid evidence the language has made a permanent shift, though not necessarily because the usage causes offense. If any news outlets were going to use slightly old-fashioned-sounding language, conservative-leaning ones would be the least surprising, since retaining traditions is one of the elements of that philosophy. -- Beland (talk) 06:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Also, to expand on my original argument: This proposal is a common style fallacy, per the reasons I just discussed above. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 04:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • So, WP:CSF essentially says, don't pay too much attention to news source style, and pay more attention to academic style guides, and it specifically mentions New Hart's Rules, The Chicago Manual of Style, Garner's Modern English Usage, Fowler's Modern English Usage. The Chicago Manual explicitly says to use "it" for ships. I don't know about the other three, but so far that sounds like an argument for the opposite of what you're saying it supports. -- Beland (talk) 06:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – I do not see this as an urgent question to be addressed. The use of "she" to refer to ships is longstanding, does not as grossly caricature women as naming destructive windstorms or unreasoning fear after them or their parts does, and is at a minimum at a time when you're apt to find "she" and "her" ostentatiously and confusingly used by the mainstream press where "he" and "his" was the norm to refer to mixed genders. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: So, I decided to do a bit of digging about the provenance and history of WP:NCS, and this change in particular dates back to 2012; that linked back to WP:SHIPMOS, which has always referred to ships as "she" and "her". In that regard, then, along with WP:RETAIN, there is already a strong rationale against the proposed change: it would not only affect a great number of articles already on Wikipedia (as Johnuniq notes), it would also be a great change to a major portion of our current manual of style. Although this is the right place for that, I would like to offer a compromise, instead: perhaps, before 1990, or, given the sources so warrant, "she"/"her" is allowed, of course; after 1990, "it" is preferred or otherwise standardized. But now I'm basically reiterating what WP:SHE4SHIPS already says, so I don't believe a change to that is needed... — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 14:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm curious why the age of the ship or what the sources from the ship's era say would make a difference to how current readers perceive Wikipedia's tone. We don't refer to movies from the 1920s as "talkies" and we don't write about Shakespeare in Early Modern English. Is it just to minimize the number of changes? A large number of changes can be done pretty easily with a semi-automated script, or we can just let them change to the new style slowly. -- Beland (talk) 03:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Use "it" in most situations. "It" should be the default, but "she" should be allowed if a clear preponderance of sources use that, and obviously allow it in direct quotes. "It" is simply the overwhelming contemporary style in general sources, and Wikipedia is contemporary general purpose source. However, don't edit war and don't mass-change articles. Thryduulf (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support It It is the most appropriate HAL333 19:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support It I really can't believe we're having this discussion. It is far and wide the normal usage for non-specialists. I agree with Thryduulf just above me, though; no need to edit war and mass-change, just update as and when the articles in questions get updated. I'm in support of WP:PLAINENGLISH, especially for foreign language users, who get taught that English has no gender for objects. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 03:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support it - mostly per the rationale provided by SportingFlyer. It is used more often than she/her. The usage of it is more clear and less confusing. It also does not have the same implication she/her does, and the section on Why some people consider it sexist is worth considering. Clovermoss (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't agree that the term is sexist, and per WP:RETAIN, both forms should remain available for use (oppose mandating one form or another). There seems to be quite a bit of evidence that there is an WP:ENGVAR issue here too. In New Zealand people commonly use 'she' not 'it' for ships and boats. The NZ naval museum for example seems to use 'she' [30], as does BoatingNZ [31], as well as the New Zealand Police [32], and the NZ Navy [33]. Ships of the same model are even referred to as "'sister' ships". This should not be controversial. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 02:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support it - 'She' could be/is considered sexist by some. Better to try and be as neutral as possible as 'it' is very unlikely to cause offense. N0nsensical.system(err0r?) 13:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Wikipedia is built on specialization, not standardization. It is very clear (in general and based on observation of the vote breakdown) that the maritime community has a strong preference for "she" in referring to ships. It is not the role of non-experts with an admitted agenda (standardizing gender-neutral language) to override this expert preference. Ergo Sum 17:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ergo Sum: Even experts in the field of ships have been using "it". Using "she" is not a sign of expertise on the subject, just a sign of bias inclination. This isn't new. Russia is still referred to as it, even though a lot of sources want to call it "she" for those who claim to be an expert. I also want to say that Wikipedia is built on moderation of both standardization and specialization.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong support for 'it' This is clearly and overwhelmingly the common English pronoun when discussing vessels, as with essentially all grammatical objects referencing non-living subject matter. The assertion that certain specialized communities continue to use an archaic (and rankly, at this moment in time, clumsy and silly) idiomatic construction is (in addition to being highly dubious, unsupported by evidence from those making the assertion here, and pretty counter to most observations of contemporary sources in the relevant fields) really of no moment; as others have already noted above, our objective on this project is not to ape vernacular usage but rather to present our coverage in a fashion which describes the subject matter in a fashion that is clear, accessible and unambiguous to the largest portion of readers, using standard English conventions derived from common usage.
Numerous of our core policies and the MoS itself make this priority clear, and even in instances where the sources in question use outdated idioms, we do not map our own usage accordingly unless it is a direct quote or in some way vital to describing the subject matter accurately and neutrally: we take our lead from reliable sources in which facts we present and how much weight to place on different perspectives, but we do not adopt their grammatical or idiomatic practices--clearly this is so, or any of our millions of articles on topics that are more than a couple hundred years old would be utterly unreadable by virtue of outdated terminology and grammatical conventions. Again, I'd reiterate that I find the argument that vaguely defined "specialists" continue to use 'she' to be highly questionable (I'm guessing that the average naval/maritime professional today would be emabrassed for a colleague who adopted this out-dated usage), but even if it is the case, it's really quite besides the point under all of our relevant policies, MoS standards in virtually all areas, common usage, and common sense. Snow let's rap 06:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Outside WP both are commonly used, both are accepted and both are widely understood. If it ain't broke, etc - and let's not try to micromanage every piece of language on WP. - SchroCat (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support this change. "She" for an inanimate object sounds sexist, old-fashioned and flowery/poetic. A 21st-century online encyclopedia should not be any of these things. A ship is a machine, and should be referred to as "it", as reflected in modern educated usage. Otherwise our articles read as though written by a creepy uncle who calls his car "she". At this rate Wikipedia may be the last publication clinging on to this patriarchal usage. That would embarrass me. --The Huhsz (talk) 09:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
"patriarchal usage" Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs but rather, in this case, to reflect language as it is actually used. Bus stop (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. Which is why we should recommend "it" as do an enormous preponderance of real-world style guides. --The Huhsz (talk) 14:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
"real-world style guides" We should jump on the bandwagon? Bus stop (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Oh shut the fuck up already. You can't simultaneously argue that we should follow real world usage and that following real world usage is jumping on the bandwagon. – Levivich 14:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. The sheer hypocracy and WP:BLUDGEONing is getting really fucking obnoxious. You've had your say, Bus Stop, now let others speak without your useless commentary. oknazevad (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Levivich—you say "You can't simultaneously argue that we should follow real world usage and that following real world usage is jumping on the bandwagon." But I am not saying "following real world usage is jumping on the bandwagon". What I am saying is that following the style guides of other publications is similar to "jumping on a bandwagon", at least in this instance, with its overtones of political correctness. Bus stop (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Oh just stop. We get it. You oppose the proposal. You said as much. We don't need to hear from you again. You're just being obnoxious. Let others state their opinions without speaking your own again for the hundredth time. oknazevad (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Oknazevad—you say "The sheer hypocracy and WP:BLUDGEONing is getting really fucking obnoxious." What I'd be curious to know is what you see as "hypocracy", which by the way is spelled "hypocrisy". In what way am I being hypocritical? Bus stop (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm far too polite to call your continual flip-flopping in this discussion "hypocrisy"; if pressed I would say that you have a deep emotional attachment to keeping "she" and are adapting your arguments on the fly each time someone counters them, as you just did to me above. I would say though, on the bludgeoning; did you know that was your 111th contribution to this discussion? I think everyone reading this knows by now that you want to keep "she" and that it's very important to you. I think by now that you have got that point across, and continued argumentation is not going to convince anyone. I'm certainly not going to argue with you when you have demonstrated that you are immune to logic. --The Huhsz (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I am not "flip-flopping" at all and you are not saying how I'm "flip-flopping". Bus stop (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Do you know the meaning of the term sea-lioning? Just wondering. EEng 22:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC) To save time, here's some handy text you can cut and paste for your response: I am not "sea-lioning" at all and you are not saying how I'm "sea-lioning".
Nice one. Hey, Bus stop, did you ever come across the No true Scotsman fallacy in argument? When we find ourselves resorting to this category of argument, we owe it to ourselves to acknowledge that it's a conviction, not a logical belief. Nothing wrong with that; I have a conviction that my children are the most beautiful and intelligent children ever. But because I know it's a conviction, I wouldn't waste my time, or that of others, in arguing it out, because I know nothing would change my mind on the subject. See also falsifiability. Best wishes, --The Huhsz (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support it Standard English does not gender objects. Therefore there would have to be an clear consensus in non-specialist sources to justify treating ships as 'special'. The evidence presented here hasn't convinced me that this is the case, so let's use standard English. Scribolt (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "She" is still part of standard English for ships and Wikipedia has been supportive of using varieties of English, not imposing one groups' grammar per WP:ENGVAR. To quote from the 16 Nov 2019 issue of The Economist's opening paragraph of an article about aircraft carriers: "She was returning from an ingominious tour of duty in the Mediterranean. One of the 15 warplanes with which she had been pounding Syria had crashed into the sea... When she finally docked near Murmansk a 70-tonne crane smashed into her deck." StarryGrandma (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
    That article is the exception, not the rule. Per Doremo's comment below, The Economist overwhelmingly uses it/its instead of she/her. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 20:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Which reinforces my point that Wikipedia continue to follow WP:ENGVAR and not impose a grammar where there is difference of usage. The same article uses "its" when quoting an American navy captain - does the analysis account for that? StarryGrandma (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Let us be realistic, Ahecht. The Economist avails itself of all 5 pronouns (she, her, hers, it, its) applicable to ships. In this article, for instance, The Economist uses "she", "her", and "its" in the same paragraph. Bus stop (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @StarryGrandma: here are my concerns: even if it was acceptable sentence outside of wikipedia, does it provide the encyclopedic and neutral tone that Wikipedia seeks? Is "She" a technical term, or just mariner tradition? There is no evidence that using "she" is considered appropriate pronoun to use outside of mariner lingo. Sources have the freedom to express themselves in whatever tone they desire, if they want to use "she" to sound more personally invested in the ship, or consider it a living entity, or for tradition, its hard to say. But the common and more appropriate term to use in Wikipedia when attempting to be nuetral and an actual encyclopedia is to use "it".Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Use it because it is used by most style guides --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 19:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support it - This is an encyclopedia. We're not here to maintain the bizarre, esoteric tradition of referring to an inanimate object as a gendered living thing. The fact that it's a strong tradition in the maritime community is irrelevant, because we're not a member of the maritime community, nor are we governed by maritime tradition. We're governed by common sense. ~Swarm~ {sting} 19:58, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support standardizing on "it" — There are many compelling reasons to use "it", but the most compelling reason to me is that Wikipedia is ultimately here to provide knowledge: Simpler writing helps readers, while sexism distracts them (regardless of whether the usage is historically/etymologically sexist; that question is a red herring in this discussion). The counterarguments of preserving tradition or the elegance of writing do not nearly outweigh the improved utility to readers. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/them)｜Talk｜Contributions 23:11, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support it. The practice of referring to ships with "she" is both sexist and, as the nominator notes, recommended against in modern style guides, so I see no reason to continue it here. (Also, for the record, the multiple jokes I've seen in this discussion about a ship's preferred pronouns are both transphobic and unfunny.) TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    Every liberation movement goes through a "that's not funny!" phase. EEng 07:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support it. Unlike some other languages, English neuter nouns use neuter pronouns, unless you are writing poetry and want to personify the noun. This is so obvious that contrary arguments defy common sense. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose the use of "it", but in the interests of peace will accept the status quo. See Ballard, Robert D (1987), The Discovery of the Titanic, Madison Publishing Inc, I could see the Titanic as she slipped nose first into the glassy water. He consistently refers to all ships as "she" throughout the book. For those that don't know Ballard is an American goeologist specialising in marine exploration technology. He holds a PhD and is most famous for the discovery of the wreck of the Titanic; so not a "crusty old salt", probably not "pretentious and stupid" or whatever the latest insult being hurled around is. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ahecht: In my humble opinion, the reason why this debate is so long is because we're allowing the conversation to drift into irrelevant discussions. If it doesn't matter how many examples of "she" is used, then we need to steer the conversation on what does matters. If it provides the appropriate tone necessary to be considered neutral and encyclopedic. As of now, not a single opposer has been able to proven that this is appropriate for encyclopedic tone. And i think that's the discussion we need to focus on. At the same time, i don't believe we should use the sexist point. It can be considered sexist, but there's a bigger and more obvious reasons why we should avoid "she".Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • It. "She" is figurative and poetic, and we're an encyclopedia, we're supposed to be literal, and dry as old paint. "Just the facts, ma'am." "She" is an interesting and historical usage, and I'd love it if we had an article about why ships were called she, whether it's nurturing, or goddess, or whatever. But I don't want it getting in the way of an article on the dimensions of the latest nuclear powered aircraft carrier. --GRuban (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm wondering if those who support "She" are willing to compromise for the standardization of "it" in Wikipedia, but create an article on the history of adding female pronouns to Ships, where it's origins came from, and which regions practice it. Also include it's decline of it being standard use of course.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment While "she" sounds strange and archaic to me, it does seem from the BBC example that this usage is still somewhat widespread in UK/Commonwealth English. Now Americans outnumber Brits so we could just outvote them, but that seems impolite. Maybe we could compromise by saying to usually use "it", but for British/Commonwealth Ships that "she" is OK too. Some details about how to treat pre-1776 ships associated with America but technically British would need to be agreed to, but I think that could be addressed on a case-by-case basis. I'm not sure what to do about Canada though since usage is about halfway between American and British. I don't recall this usage from the times I've been to Canada, but it's possible the topic just never came up. Perhaps someone from Canada could shed light on this by providing links to Canadian media to show if "she" is still in use up there. Anyway, I prefer compromise to controversy, and it seems maybe this is something more people could get behind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.77.98.118 (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
    Given that the BBC's own published style guide recommends "it", as well as every other primarily British style guide we've been able to find guidance from (save the Economist), this doesn't appear to be an ENGVAR issue. See the WT:MOS#List of style guides section below. CThomas3 (talk) 19:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support it for consistency with the listed style guides. In a modern context, the use of she for ships is artistic, but not encyclopedic. — Newslinger talk 21:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support it "she" sounds somewhat antiquated and can be confusing in several situations. I could understand using "she" if that was the dominant usage, but opinion is at least split on the topic. Hut 8.5 15:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support it It's more logical and is well accepted. Wikipedia should have a consistent style one way or the other -- "Editor's choice" has no place in a manual of style. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as she is the linguistic standard while, here on WP, it is already allowed as alternative. ...GELongstreet (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @GELongstreet: This has yet to be proven to be true. If you're a mariner, it would make sense to believe "she" is the standard in your line of work. Although it is true that its an acceptable sentence, we should still ask ourselves by using "she" instead of "it", are we conveying the appropriate encyclopedic and neutral tone. It's being proven below that the common practice is "it" with general sources, while a select professionals (not all) are choosing to use "she".Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 18:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
up to [a] vote here – No, it is emphatically WP:NOTAVOTE. EEng 21:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I understand, but i'm only informing you that what you said wasn't factual. There is no evidence that "she" is the standard and "it" as the alternative. There are some tangents here and there in the debate, but whats most important is we keep the appropriate encyclopedic and neutral tone. if we stick with what truly matters in Wikipedia, i'm sure the answer is obvious.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 18:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @GELongstreet:; if you think that she is the linguistic standard, it should be easy to provide evidence to that effect. Can you please do so? Because the evidence presented in this discussion seems to show the contrary. --The Huhsz (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose mass changing of valid English vocabulary. I think both should be allowed and used depending on circumstances. I don't see any harm in calling a 400-year old ships 'she', but more recent ships should IMO be called it, as it sounds more modern. L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Follow the sources. Per MOS:IDENTITY: When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by reliable sources. If it isn't clear which is most used, use the term that the person or group uses. Interpret "the term that the person or group uses" as the term used by the owner or operator of the ship. feminist (talk) 04:20, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

It's not expert level terminology, it's just how we have referred to ships for over 500 years and despite the noise created by a very vocal progressive minority there isn't any reason to change. I am however waiting for bitter cries of "did you just assume that ship's gender?" Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

  • @Sennen goroshi: Its frustrating to keep this discussion objective when people have preconceived notions about other people. There's no assumption of gender because ships do not have genders, no one is going to cry about assuming the gender of a ship. People are choosing it over she because of the fact that the standard is to call inanimate objects it and there is no real reason to continue using it, and doesn't add any real encyclopedic value. It's been confirmed that the majority of reliable sources have opted to use "it" over "she" for ships. This isn't a minority of progressives either. The standard practice is to call ships "it" is also practiced among the common reader. I'm not seeing this as an attempt to right wrongs, or that it's sexist, or that this is political. All i care about is understandability and readability and neutrality. I do not believe using "She" for ships is neutral. It adds a tone of personal inclination.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 16:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE - I appreciate that @Beland: (in his 5 points) didn't include complaints of sexism. But, I've noticed other editors suggesting "she" be changed to "it", because the former is 'offensive'. I'm not interested in promoting political correctness. Note: I realise that promoting political correctness, wasn't Beland's intent here. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
@GoodDay: You have already stated your vote in this discussion above. Please don't vote twice. El Millo (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
No I didn't. I merely commented previously. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
It's sad to see a perfectly good reason to vote for standardization of "it" but people oppose out of spite.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 17:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Please stop comparing this debate as something related to including made up, non-standard english pronouns that have not held any ground. it's not ridiculous at all. The standard practice of calling ships "it" outside maritime is the standard. Why does everyone who vote oppose have think this is some political agenda?Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 15:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Use "it". Personifying ships is a naval tradition (superstition?) but it is not grammatically correct. I'm not surprised to learn below that many of the style guides use "it", which is more accurate and less confusing to a wider range of readers than "she", which I see as a sort of unnecessary jargon. ST47 (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There is variation in usage, which the MOS currently recognises. No purpose is served by forcing one preferred usage. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment @Yngvadottir: I understand that there is varying use. But when you factor in which is the more common pronoun among common english speakers, and which type of sources specifically choose to use "She" over "it", you see the pattern that "it" is more dominantly used in modern standard english than "she". Remember that these sources can choose what tone they want. IF they want to sound more personally inclined to ships, they will most likely choose to use "she" to reflect that. Also, Wikipedia at this time is the only site out there that is inconsistent about it. some choose to use it, some use to she and in rare occasions they use both. But sources choose to use one or the other as the standard, not both.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 22:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • All you are really saying is that you want consistency. But that is not the way usage works, and we don't have to choose one regional variation over another, or newspaper usage over navies. I regret to see this framed as an argument over sexism: referring to your ship as if she were your mother is anything but denigratory to women, IMO, but it is the beauty of our being Wikipedia, not a smaller or more formal organisation, that we can accommodate both usages. I applaud those instances in which the MOS guardians have recognised that they cannot and should not impose a single standard, and wish very much to keep this one. The nomination statement IMO badly undervalues the continuation of the use of "she", but who knows, maybe the sources you use for ship articles differ from those I use. Both are acceptable usages. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I already made a topic about how we should drop the sexist point of the discussion. It's bringing more harmful than beneficial. Regardless, there are more objective reasons to use "it" over "she". You have to understand that not all readers are maritime, and Wikipedia should be neutral. Yes we accept information from reliable maritime sources, but they have the freedom to choose their own tone and demographic. They can make their websites completely designed around a maritime audience. Wikipedia however is not the same. Its a "neutral" "encyclopedia" for the common english reader, and we have to use what is standard. It has been proven below that "it" is the standard, not she. Perhaps 100 or 500 years ago, ships were commonly referred to as she even in standard english, but that's not the case anymore.
By choosing to use "she" over "it", we are already affecting the tone and partiality of Wikipedia. It shows that Wikipedia is partial to Maritime jargon over all others.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 22:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Strong Oppose per MOS:RETAIN and WP:ENGVAR; It has common usage, is not sexist, and is standard convention. I think most of the arguments given by the nominator why was they think using "It" is better than "she" but most reasons brought up are not valid reasons to use on it on Wikipedia. For instance, the first argument was per Wikipedia:Use modern language which is an essay not a policy or guideline so does not have any real relevance here. But let's assume it does, referring to ships as "she" is in common usage. However, I think the reason there is such a split in these discussion is beucase "she" is not used as commonly as it is in British/Commonwealth usage. Perhaps American English articles could use "it" and others use "she" however I think that would be create even more inconsistency.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Prefer "it", but oppose forcing the issue Both usages are common. "She" is usually used in maritime parlance, it is otherwise used. Acebulf (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support "it" as it is much more encyclopedic in tone (and not sexist as a bonus). Kaldari (talk) 04:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support 'it' as more encyclopedic. --Michig (talk) 06:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose, or better put, oppose for now. There are walls of text to go through so I apologize if there was an arguemnt I didn't consider, feel welcome to add information I may have missed below if you think it will make me reconsider. The MoS has long been tolerant of some variations in usage. We allow differrent styles for citations, dates, times, eras, spelling etc. That is to say, one particular style has never been mandated just because it is the majority or plurality style so long as others with a significant minority usage exist. It's difficult to put an exact number an usage percentage in recently published works, not least of which because as others have made apparent, some organizations fail to follow their own style guides and are often internally inconsistent in the course of a single article. If this were a question of use of a single word with few definitions, it would be easy to find prevalence in recently published written works using online tools, alas none of the tools I found could narrowly answer the question of how often "she" was used in the context of a pronoun for ships. Thus my conclusion that this has substantial minority usage, at least regionally, is largely based on the less than satisfactory evidence gathered here. I do strongly believe, given current trends, this usage will eventually fall by the wayside, but I don't believe we are there just yet.
Some other points remain to be addressed.
  1. It has been argued that whatever its prevalence usage of "she" is currently restricted to nautical or specialty sources and so should be ended on that ground alone. I'm not convinced that such a restriction in usage is an accurate characterization based on existing evidence. However, even if we assume so for the sake of arguement I don't believe it entails the outcome of eliminating it. Many of our mathematical, scientific, and technical articles are filled with terminology specific to their field, and I see no obvious reason why nautical articles should differ. Indeed in some cases the MOS allows specialty uses for word that are otherwise archaic (e.g. "quire may be used instead of choir in architectural contexts"). Or in a related context, the extensive use of nautical miles as the primary unit in nautical articles, in fact they don't even have to be converted.
  2. There has been suggestion that those arguements from people from nautical and related WikiProjects and backgrounds should be ignored. While I have no doubt that those who work or have worked on the water are more frequently exposed to this usage, and hence more likely to defend it, I don't believe their arguements should be discounted solely due to their background.
  3. While there has been some back and forth on ENGVAR, this has not been addressed in nearly the detail I would like. There is some discussion of American, Australian, and British usage, and where they might differ, and no discussion of virtually any of the other varieties of english. Do the Indian, Phillipine, South African, Liberian ENGVARs, or any one of a dozen others have a strong usage pattern either way? Who knows because no one has bothered to bring it up. This does cut both directions, if evidence is brought forth that shows either usage is vanishingly small in some ENGVAR, I support insofar as it applies to articles written in that variety (As a fun little side-note TIL that many varieties of english assign gender to inanimate nouns in a fairly systematic manner, and now I have new book to check out at the libarary).
  4. Concern was expressed over readers finding 'she' to be a surprising usage. I've given this little weight because to a sufficiently ignorant (in the non-pejorative sense) reader virtually anything may be surprising and our choice of vocabulary and sentence structure would be highly restricted. If the concern is for people with low familiarity with english, there's another wiki for that.
  5. Finally, some commentators have expressed that the usage of "she" is or could be considered to be sexist. I'm sympathetic to those concerns. While the origins of the usage going back at least to the 14th century are obscure and may or may not be so, it certainly has been used in a sexist manner by the, still, predominantly male members of the maritime profession, and also to be fair in non-sexist ways. That said, Wikipedia does WP:NOT exist to WP:RGW, and I'm unwilling to make an exception to that long-standing policy in this case.
Update:This is a crude tool but ngrams gives approximately a 2:1 ratio overall [34] as of 2008, which is probably a bit higher now. That convinces me that this is a significant minority usage. If anyone has evidence that in any national variety of English the ratio is 20:1 or greater, I support insofar as it applies to that variety. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Extended discussion moved to #Discussion of Spectrum's (i.e. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546)'s !vote 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't think standardization is needed her. So what if some articles say "it" and some say "she"? There are a lot of wordings that aren't consistent across articles. If "she" is now obsolete (rather than still shuffling toward its inevitable future obsolescence), then few editors will be using it, right? So it's not all that necessary to make a rule. If substantial numbers of editors are still using "she", isn't that kind of an indication that that is not obsolete yet? It will be, I guess, so let's revisit the question in 20 years or whenever. Herostratus (talk) 05:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
    @Herostratus: The current rule says that we aren't allowed to change from "she" to "it", so even if few editors are writing new articles with "she", all the existing articles that are already using "she" will have to stay that way forever, and sound increasingly old-fashioned as time goes on. Perhaps there's some gentle compromise that lets editors who prefer "she" to continue to use it, but also allows for a gradual transition to "it"? Maybe allowing new articles with "she" and changing existing articles from "she" to "it" but to avoid incessant flipping not allowing articles using "it" to be changed to "she"? Then the burden of changing "she" to "it" would fall on editors who care enough to bother, and no doubt it would be relatively gradual. -- Beland (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
If it sound old fashioned enough, we can change the rule then. If and until that time comes, just let the person writing the material -- that is, doing the actual work of the project -- do as she sees fit. It's alright if something sounds old fashioned, provided it does not obscure the meaning of the material. Herostratus (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support it. "She" comes off to me as a holdover from a time when non-gender-neutral usages (like -man) were unquestioned, and as mildly sexist in its objectification of women by treating them as equivalent to inanimate objects. And "it" is neutral and unobjectionable. So what if the number of people actually offended by "she" is small and the arguments for why it is offensive are not always convincing? If I'm going to have to offend people either way, I'd rather offend the people who insist on using gendered language over others' objections than the ones who object to it. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support it Regardless of the accuracy of the belief, "she" is widely viewed as old-fashioned and/or sexist. The standard justification for "she" is very clearly sexist, as admitted even by advocates for its continued usage. They had to invent -- or "attempted to provide" -- a series of alternative justifications. Of the three they provided, the first actually admits that the usage is sexist; the second doesn't hold up when applied to contemporary naming conventions, since virtually all the ships listed here would have to be referred to as "he" if we applied the rule to ships named after male historical figures and/or divinities; and the third is clearly arbitrary, since few if any other nouns with Latin translations (even those that, unlike ship, actually come from Latin) are treated this way. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support "it". A hundred years ago, ships were generally "she". Fifty years ago, ships were sometimes "it". Twenty years ago, ships were often "it". Now, ships are commonly "it" except for some legacy areas. Do you sense the trend here? Sometime in the next twenty years, using "she" will be universally seen as blatantly archaic and apparently sexist. If WP doesn't go with "it" now, it will just do so in the future, after we've wasted everyone's time by going through this whole discussion again. Let's just accept the inevitable now and all get back to useful editing. --A D Monroe III(talk) 22:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support it. English is not a gendered language; the usage of "she" as regards ships has always been subjective, and as demonstrated in the extensive discussion below changed over time. When writing a modern, general-use encyclopedia, we don't retain archaic forms of language simply because they please us. Mackensen (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose she, but do not support it (as the only binary option), and offer new proposal. This RFC is malformed as this is not a binary question; it is possible to write ship articles with neither pronoun.

    While I respect that many sources still use archaic language, Wikipedia is not required to follow suit, particularly when it can be demonstrated that neither of these restricted options is necessary. We no longer name hurricanes as "she"; there is no reason to continue the archaic tradition with ships, and good reason to encourage better writing from all editors.

NEW MOS:GNL Proposal:
Current Proposed
Ships may be referred to using either feminine forms ("she", "her", "hers") or neuter forms ("it", "its"). Either usage is acceptable, but each article should be internally consistent and employ one or the other exclusively. As with all optional styles, articles should not be changed from one style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so. See WP:Manual of Style/Military history § Pronouns Ships have historically been referred to using either feminine forms ("she", "her", "hers") or neuter forms ("it", "its"); gender pronouns can often be avoided by re-casting sentences, varying vocabulary, and writing with clarity. See HMS Calliope (1884) and TS King Edward for examples of ship articles that avoid the use of either "it" or "she" to refer to the vessel.
Remove all wording from the guideline about not changing the gendered pronouns, as these instances should and can be changed-- almost every one of them, as evidenced by not one, but at least two ship articles that only use "she" or "her" in direct quotes. See discussion section below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral, leaning support - It makes sense to say it, but there seems to be a lot for opposing. Hm. --BEANS X2 (talk) 12:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support proposal/"it". Deprecate "she" per #List of style guides below and per SMcC above: "she is an archaic, pretentious affectation and rather sexist (or often perceived as such) ... [our] in-house style guide ... follows contemporary, mainstream, formal English for very good reasons. WP isn't written in salty dialect, headache-inducing jargon, bleeding-edge slang, or quaint Victorianisms. When other major style guides are in favor of it, then so is WP". Agreed per SandyGeorgia that recasting to avoid pronouns is best and we should say so, but MOS:GNL will still need updating to (1) remove the current "she" exception for ships, to be replaced with something, (2) to codify the deprecation of "she" (e.g., recommending "it") for those who miss the memo and need a pronoun. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 23:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
@John M Wolfson: And what english is WIkipedia imposing? This isn't a regional difference, this is regarding standard common english and the nautical speech. The goal should be neutral.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 20:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. Christ, this again? The current guidance is perfectly satisfactory and works well to prevent edit wars. Wikipedia already violates grammar rules on the capitalization of proper names in article titles, so why should they matter here?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @Sturmbogel 66: Is edit wars really what you're concerned about and nothing. The problem is why we violate grammar rules. The only sole reason why they continue to use "she" is for tradition. There's no other reason. And is that appropriate for Wikipedia to follow? Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 20:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, again. And we will keep doing this, because the issue will never go away until we solve it, by not using "she". When, inevitably, WP switches to "it", no one will ever again take seriously any proposal that we should go back; that's the one and only way to a "never again". --A D Monroe III(talk) 21:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
That reads as "Yes, again. I'll keep repeating myself because I know best until everyone else gives in through sheer exhaustion and then we'll supress any further discussion. So there!". Perhaps you didn't mean it to read like that, but it does. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't know why someone would assume such a childish view of my argument, except perhaps of in view of some other childish arguments here. But I'll try repeating this with more detail.
We have an issue where the use of "she" for ships, though once common and preferred, is becoming less so over time, instead appearing more and more archaic and sexist. That can reflect poorly on WP. That poor appearance will continue, and increase, as long as we use "she", and will only stop when we stop using "she". Thus, discussions about stopping such use will reoccur until the issue is solved. At some point, since the trend is only going in one direction, WP will inevitably stop using "she". If we stop now, the discussions will stop now. If not, the discussion will happen again, because the issue wasn't solved. Someone being surprised that this discussion is occurring again is like someone being surprised that the broken light in their room that they refused to fix yesterday is still broken today.
Nothing here has anything to do with my opinions; it all exists regardless of them. Actually, I personally don't care what any WP article uses for ship pronouns; why would I? I only care about what makes WP better. Having discussions like these, which editors have a passion to debate with apparently endless intensity, wastes all these editors' efforts that could have be used to actually improve WP. Thus I am against repeating these discussions, thus I am for solving the issue instead of letting it fester. There's only way to do this: WP has to move to "it", and now is much, much better than later. --A D Monroe III(talk) 22:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Actually, when you use phrases like "we will keep doing this" it does sound like petulant infantile foot-stamping. The problem is though that you are trying to change correct usage for a PC variant which is offensive and wrong. Consider for a moment a ficticious medical article in which someone points out that "arse" is more common than "buttocks". They then point out that the only people using "buttocks" are jargon-ridden medics and a few old prudes whereas everyone under 30 uses "arse". Now where would you stand? Comming rather more down to earth, what is the next target – is the use of "port" and "starboard" jargon only used by a minority, after all left and right would do? In short, using "it" for ships is wrong historically and technically and ought to be eliminated from WP. In the interests of trying to avoid edit warring perhaps we can use the existing formula which is offensive and wrong, but where concensus may have to lie. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but what is offensive about calling a ship 'it'? El Millo (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Is it "offensive and wrong" because it is "PC"? Are all these style guides, and Lloyd's of London "offensive and wrong"? Are the ngrams showing that it's a shrinking minority usage also "offensive and wrong"? This is a discussion about terminology, and data and encyclopedic arguments are better than saying that those you disagree with are "offensive and wrong", without saying why you think this. --The Huhsz (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I think PC means politically correct. If calling ships "she" is sexist, why aren't "daughter cells" also sexist? "Daughter cells" are not female. Daughter cells are no more female than ships are female. And the field of stem cell research, in which we find the term "daughter cells" used, is anything but old fashioned. It represents cutting edge science. Wikipedia does not have to hop on specious bandwagons. Western civilization is not hurried along to its final gasp by the allowance of both neuter and a feminine pronouns for ships in Wikipedia's manual of style. The only reason I'm participating in this discussion is because it is so inane—how can you get so lathered up over a standard English usage that is used by sources of impeccable quality—such as The Economist? Bus stop (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
So you call those daughter cells "she"? Tony (talk) 01:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't know. But they are called "daughter cells". That's all I know.

Tony1—in your "Support" vote you write "It is shamefully sexist to continue this gendered language for ships." How do you know it is sexist? Someone told you? You figured it out for yourself? It is just obvious? Bus stop (talk) 01:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

It's so obvious. Tony (talk) 03:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Plus -- and it's so very important to remember this -- calling ships she in this day and age is stupid and pretentious. EEng 05:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
And yet entirely literate sources refer to ships as "she" and "her" and they do so in the same paragraph that they refer to ships as "it". Perhaps the English language is more flexible than you think it is. Language in general is not for nailing things down. We don't shop in Home Depot for language. Language is for expressing oneself. You are arguing, in essence, for narrowing the possibilities involved in referencing ships in English. Pronouns are references to nouns. The English language has this inbuilt flexibility for referencing ships, and you want to remove some of that flexibility. Good luck. This is only the Wikipedia manual of style. I think the English-speaking world will carry on referencing ships using both neuter and feminine pronouns. Bus stop (talk) 06:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
You're like a jukebox. A nickel in the slot and off you go. EEng 06:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
You are off-topic as usual. Comment on the topic, not the editor. Bus stop (talk) 06:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
About 15 years ago I took a course on lost languages – you know, how they figured out the hieroglyphics and cuneiform and stuff like that. Great course, great instructor, though part way through a colleague of his took ill and he had to take over the course on Akkadian as well, and it was somewhat stressful because (he said), "My Akkadian's a little rusty"; I thought that was really funny. Anyway, I wrote a paper for the course on John Wilkins. Great guy, the founder of latitudinarianism, did you know that? Anyway, the instructor liked it a lot and let me follow up the next summer with what they call a 91r, "Independent Reading and Research", to develop some of the ideas in it more fully. Great summer I spent at the library doing that, best summer of my life, I was assigned my own little desk in the stacks all to myself and every morning I'd come in and open my little locker and take out a little spray bottle and clean my spectacles, because I was then just getting farsighted (in the literal sense, not metaphorical) and once in a while some poor lost visiting scholar would wander by staring at a slip of paper, and I'd say, "Can I help you? ... Ah yes, LSoc, Learned Societies, that's D West, four levels down, turn right, through the doors, careful you don't hit your head on the sewer pipe", and I'd say it without even looking at the directory, so cool and knowing, the master of the classification locations. Anyway, the paper was on 17th-century philosophical languages. And a great paper it was, if I do say so myself. Anyway, in that paper I wrote:
A surefire sign that the topic of universal languages was in general currency is the appearance in 1653 of a satire, Thomas Urquhart’s Logopandecteision, or, An introdvction to the vniversal langvage... The dedication “To No-body” is followed by a delirious enumeration of scores of “advantages”:
Three and twentiethly, Every word in this Language signifieth as well backward as forward; and however you invert the letters, still shall you fall upon significant words: whereby a wonderful facility is obtained in making of Anagrams ... Five and fourtiethly, All the several genders in this Language, are as well competent to verbs as nouns: by vertue whereof, at the first uttering of a verb in the active voice, you shall know whether it be a god, a goddess, a man, a woman, a beast, or any thing inanimate, (and so thorow the other five genders) that doth the action...
After some one hundred fifty pages of this, Urquhart lapses into a harangue against his creditors, then abruptly leaves off, having said nothing specific whatsoever about this marvelous language.
Anyway, you remind me your comment The English language has this inbuilt flexibility for referencing ships reminds me of that. Good times. EEng 08:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
The pivotal question is whether the usage is sexist. I have exhorted people to discuss that. I don't think it has satisfactorily been addressed despite the length of this discussion. Bus stop (talk) 19:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
No, the pivotal question is whether it's poetic, outmoded, confusing to many readers, pretentious, and stupid. The potential sexism is just the icing on the cake, but by no means necessary. Continuing to try to return the conversation to the sexism argument, as if it's the only one, is part of your continuing pattern of disingenuousness.
It's truly a shame that English doesn't have separate genders for gods and goddesses, beasts and ships like Urquhart's does, 'cause then you'd be home free. EEng 20:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm Opposed to this proposal, as I find the rationale flawed. It claims the usage is:-
  • 'Old fashioned' (citing Cambridge Online, and Merriam Webster: Only Cambridge says unequivocally 'old-fashioned'; Merriam-Webster (which is the definitive US dictionary) only says 'somewhat old-fashioned', and then only in the guidance for English learners. Contrariwise, the OED (the definitive dictionary for British English) doesn't support it at all. It lists 'She' as
.a) referring to an artefact, esp. a ship or boat or (now chiefly colloquial and regional) a conveyance, a cannon or gun, or a tool or utensil (latest quote 2002);
.c) referring to a natural object considered as feminine, esp the Moon, the planet Venus, a river (now rare), or (formerly) the sea, or a tree (latest 2007);
and .d) referring to an abstraction (esp a city, a country, an army, the church) personified as feminine (latest 2011)
  • 'Quaint & poetic' : The source for this is a blog, which could have been written by anyone (including anyone here!)
  • 'Uncommon' : Yet the N-gram shown below indicates a 2 to 1 split in usage, which hardly makes it archaic, or obsolete, or even rare.
  • 'Disrecommended by some' : Maybe, but not by all, particularly ones who might know what they are talking about.
  • 'Confusing' : Well, some English speakers may not like it, but I dispute/doubt that they find it confusing. As for ESL readers, this will hardly be the first example of just how irregular English is.
  • Violating the general rule that English 'has no grammatical gender': Again, maybe; but English does have metaphorical gender (of which this is only one example). And English, being irregular, is replete with exceptions to general rules.
Contrariwise, the justification for all this is UML, which is an essay, not a guideline; it expresses the opinions of a group of editors, and thus carries no more weight than any other interest group. Moreover, the essay is itself debatable. Finally, the proposal claims standardizing to 'it' would be an accepted style: The accepted style of WP, (per ENGVAR) is to allow flexibility among writers with different language styles, while (per CONSENSUS) we are urged to find and accept compromise, not insist on a single solution to problems. Xyl 54 (talk) 21:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
@Xyl 54: The problem i think is that its a speech clearly intended for mariner talk. The usage has been openly based on tradition, and there is no technical, encyclopedic, or nuetral reason why it continues to be used. Yes, its acceptable to call ships she, but is it the most encyclopedic thing to do? Objectively, ships are it. ANd subjectively, ships are she.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 21:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • neutral, but, as a Portuguese language native, and a far from perfect English reader/writer, I note that the point about confusing non English Language natives is condescending and should be ignored. Portuguese has no "it" so using "she" for ships is common (mostly in the navy, military and civil? I'm not sure...) I think "he" is also used (mostly by non navy people? Again, I don't know...). We might be flabargasted... hmmm... flabergasted... aaah... flabbergasted with... "flabbergasted" :-) but hardly so with "it" or "she". - Nabla (talk) 16:31, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion of !votes

Discussion of Popcornduff's !vote

Discussion moved from #Survey section – Levivich 22:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Agree Keith-264 (talk) 14:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Another modern style guide, the Guardian style guide, does not use "she". Popcornduff (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
We are not The Guardian. It is a liberal, left wing publication. It is simply wrong for Wikipedia to tamper with the language we are operating within. It doesn't matter if certain other style guides would like to present their publications in such a way that they promote a philosophy that their publication represents. We don't have an underlying philosophy that I'm aware of. Except to provide citations in support of all assertions that we make. We aren't constrained by an overriding philosophy that we try to promote at every opportunity. In making assertions we simply use the language that is available to us. Bus stop (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Except we do have an underlying philosophy: we comprehensively describe notable subjects of history using neutral language. The neutral way to describe an inanimate object is to use a gender-neutral pronoun. Those with a strong connection to a vessel, such as a builder who puts his or her sweat and toil into creating it, or a sailor who depends on it for his or her life and livelihood, clearly have the right to refer to it as "she" (or whatever pronoun they prefer). We as an encyclopedia, however, should stick to the facts: "it" is a ship. "It" was built on this date, "it" served in during this time period, and "it" achieved notability because of these actions. We should not flourish, we should not embellish, and we should not editorialize. To my way of thinking, even if we discount the potentially offensive nature of "she" and agree that it is an accepted term of respect for the ship, that's promoting a non-neutral philosophy in and of itself. I agree that it's a generally positive one, but still, it's non-neutral.
To me this is a similar situation to capitalizing "He/Him/His" when referring to major deities. It has been traditionally taught as the "correct" style, and it is still widely done by members of associated professions/religions and in "expert" writings on the subject. However, Wikipedia has rejected this style in the name of neutrality. We should reject ships as "she" for the same reason. CThomas3 (talk) 21:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • And what exactly isn't neutral about using she? Consistent use of 'she' is still around, although 'it' has also taken popularity. Both are acceptable, one just has a gender connotation assigned to it due to tradition. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 23:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Necrothesp's !vote

Discussion moved from #Survey section – Levivich 22:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose. Absolutely not. Why go against common English usage? Nothing "old-fashioned" about it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
    • @Necrothesp: Could you cite an English language authority that documents that? "Old-fashioned" is the label applied by the Cambridge Dictionary, which seems relatively objective and well-researched, so I'm wondering on what basis we'd doubt it? -- Beland (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
      • The Royal Navy, for a start. [35], [36], [37], [38]. Then we've got BBC News, ITV News, HMS Victory, HMS Unicorn, the Ministry of Defence, the National Museum of the Royal Navy, HMS Warrior, the Royal Australian Navy, the Port of London Authority, the Scottish Government, etc, etc. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
        • Excellent; thanks for those! It looks like several of them are actually just various parts of the Royal Navy or UK government agencies, so are a bit duplicative. But certainly the BBC and ITV are general audience media outlets, so that's a strong argument. Though there are some UK sources (Lloyd's List, the Guardian) that are against "she", the other style guides and navies I've seen documented are American, and the sources you've cited are British and Australian. Perhaps this usage is less acceptable in American English compared to other varieties? A lot of times British usage does sound quaint or old-fashioned to American ears. Should we try making a distinction between articles about American ships vs. those from other English-speaking countries? -- Beland (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
          • You can also add in the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea which are published by the International Maritime Organisation which is a specialised agency of the United Nations with 174 countries as members. Any master of a vessel navigating "upon the high seas and in all waters connected therewith navigable by seagoing vessels" is required to know and abide by the regulations. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
            • Which style do they follow? It's worth pointing out that this is a technical source and not meant for a general audience. -- Beland (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
              • Sorry, from the context I thought it clear that they used "she". We could discuss "general audience", but the mandated audience includes all power, sailing and manually propelled vessels from supertankers down to paddleboards, including dinghies, canoes, windsurfers and jetskis. The UN is also usually regarded as a fairly reliable source! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
                • Given sailboats and supertankers don't read, I assume you mean the audience for those UN regulations is all operators of those watercraft? The audience of people who operate boats on the sea is pretty specialized compared with the audience of everyone who might read about boats because they are curious how they work or their role in history or something. I've rowed a canoe and powered a paddleboat and steered a small dinghy but never had to read any UN regulations - or any regulations whatsoever - though perhaps that was because we were on rivers and lakes? -- Beland (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
                  • Oops, yes - clearly the masters and watchkeepers. The colregs apply to "the high seas and in all waters connected therewith navigable by seagoing vessels", so a lake or river into which a seagoing vessel could not navigate is not included in them. On the other hand, most national bodies extend a modified version of the international regs to include enclosed waters. Depending upon which country you are in, the regulations may be promulgated by the Coast Guard or a similar organisation and made into law by your national govenment. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
                  • I'm in the United States; there are lots of complicated and disputed rules about which water is subject to federal vs. state law, so I don't know if federal jurisdiction applied to my situation or not. But there's no one at the beach stopping me from putting my paddleboard into federal waters until I've read the relevant Coast Guard regulations, and no one expects me to have done so. Even for driving, where the roads are clearly governed under state law and I had to get a license and pass a test, hardly anyone actually reads the laws, which are written in legal jargon. The state produces a driver's manual which is written in language appropriate for a general audience. -- Beland (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
                    • This is getting way off topic. If you go to the US Coast Guard web site you'll find all the information you require. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
                      • My point is I don't require this information, nor do most people, even people on the water. I did poke around a bit on the USCG web site looking for traffic laws. I ended up in the US Code, which is not written in a style suitable for a general audience, unless you think English should capitalize all important nouns and number paragraphs. -- Beland (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
            • Per: This. ~ R.T.G 12:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
          • @Beland: A lot of times British usage does sound quaint or old-fashioned to American ears. Trust me, that works the other way around too! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Lyndaship's !vote

Discussion moved from #Survey section – Levivich 22:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose. Never come across an RS we use on ships articles which doesn't use the feminine form Lyndaship (talk) 14:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
    • @Lyndaship: Out of curiosity, do you write articles about military ships, civilian, or both? I'm curious if there's a difference in practice. Also curious if these sources are post-2000? There seems to have been a significant change in the acceptability of this usage from prior decades. -- Beland (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
      • That's an interesting point which I can't really answer as the vast majority of books I use were first published before 2000, looking in the few more recent ones they all use she. They are mostly on military ships Lyndaship (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
    • These are easy to find - for example, coverage of ships in sources such as the Guardian.[39] Popcornduff (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
      • The Guardian bless its (her) cotton socks is not usually a source of first call for writing a ship article. The Guardian in another article quotes a Royal Navy spokesperson as saying they will always use she for ships Lyndaship (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
        • But the Guardian is written for a general audience, like Wikipedia, but the Royal Navy is more like a technical source that has its own jargon. Given the trend of language change, I doubt it will "always" use "she"; the US Navy in contrast has already declared a change. -- Beland (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
          • The Guardian tends to reflect its PC readership rather than been written for a general readership. Looking at sources online which we use in ships articles such as uboat.net and wrecksite.eu "she" is used, on other sites I see some of "the ship" but not "it". God bless it and all who sail in it? Lyndaship (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
            • The Guardian is just one example - the point is that many RSs aimed at a general readership use "it", so maybe we should do the same. Popcornduff (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
            • But only the Guardian has been given as an example. Hers some links to the Daily Telegraph [40], Daily Mail [41], The Times [42], Daily Express [43] and The Sun [44] who all use the feminine form and all have alarger circulation than the Guardian Lyndaship (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
              Hers some links – Funny how the mind plays tricks. EEng 19:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
            • I don't think leaning liberal or leaning conservative disqualifies a source from being intended for a general audience, as opposed to a technical audience. I wouldn't dismiss a public news outlet that uses "she" for ships because it was too conservative. -- Beland (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
              • "God bless her and all who sail in her" definitely sounds more old-fashioned to me compared to "God bless it and all who sail in it", but these are phrases that would be spoken in a formal, highly traditional and old-fashioned ship-blessing ceremony, not something that Wikipedia or the even the BBC would say in its own voice. A substantial portion of readers don't even believe in God, so it would not be neutral either. -- Beland (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Use the sourcing preference. I would expect that for most ships pre-1980/2000-ish, "she" and other female pronouns were used commonly, and would be used today for talking about older ships (eg Titanic), but for newer vessels, non-gender pronouns like "it" are more common. If it is not clear from sources, I would say if the vessel was launched post 2000, we should try to default to "it" over "she". --Masem (t) 14:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Crook1's !vote

Discussion moved from #Survey section – Levivich 22:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. As someone whose mother tongue is not English, I can tell you that referring to ship as 'she' is not confusing at all. Ships also referred to as 'she' in foreign languages. Moreover, the statement implies that all foreigners are dumb and stupid and I have an issue with such a blanket statement. Since it is already optional to use either 'she' or 'it', the whole matter should be decided by people who actually spend time and resources writing such articles as seen fit. The usage of 'she' is historical and used in most sourcing materials in XIX or XX centuries. It is also plain, obvious and unambiguous.Crook1 (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Well, not all people who are learning English as a second language are foreigners of whatever country you're talking about. I'm a native English speaker, and on occasion I've been momentarily confused as to what the female pronoun is referring to. I would hope no one would feel stupid for being confused by bad writing that's not their fault. History articles about the 1800s don't use the grammar and vocabulary of the 1800s; that would be too difficult for modern readers to understand. I don't see why we'd make an exception just for ships. -- Beland (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
      • We don't. It's still common usage today. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
        • @Necrothesp: Common where? I've seen sources documenting it's preferred by the Royal Navy and the British Marine Industries Federation, but all the sources I've seen seem to imply that it has become uncommon among the general public and written English in both mainstream and maritime publications outside these organizations. -- Beland (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
          • Given the citations that have been provided that the terminology is still being used in many places, this really does seem like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And what about terms like sister ship and mother ship? Maybe they should be renamed sibling ship and parent ship! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
            Agree or disagree, in no way is this an IDONTLIKEIT argument. Beland has brought forward plenty of sources, like every single style guide. All the counter sources so far have been British. – Levivich 15:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
            I think the most pertinent question is: what is sexist about referring to a ship as "she"? I don't think anyone has tried to address that question. Bus stop (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
            I don't think the question of whether or not this is sexist is a useful one to discuss. There's no general agreement on that point and there's no way we'd reach consensus. And frankly, if we agree it makes us sound like an old-timey sailor, or that it has just fallen out of common usage, the sexism question doesn't matter. -- Beland (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
          • To be fair, you just added those sources (thank you for that!) and I hadn't come across them in my research. -- Beland (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
          • This is the first proposal in this discussion concerning "mother ship" or "sister ship". Do you see evidence of language change with regard to those terms or changing guidance from other style manuals? -- Beland (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Popcornduff's comment

Discussion moved from #Survey section – Levivich 22:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: We can't base our MoS entirely on how external sources write. For a start, sources usually write in different ways (some RSs use "she", some don't). Besides, we have to create a style that suits our own needs and goals, and is consistent across articles and Wikipedia's general tone of voice. As far as I know WP:RS is not a requirement to reflect the language choices of sources, only facts. Popcornduff (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
    Parts of the overall MOS defer to sources for guidance. MOS:TM particularly for things like stylized names, etc. Nothing different at play here. I know there's something comfy in an absolute MOS rule, but we have to be flexible. --Masem (t) 17:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
    Yeah, I understand that we need localised consensus for different areas of the encyclopaedia, because it needs to write about different things. What I mean is that we also have many MoS standards that apply to the encyclopaedia as a whole. But that was probably an irrelevant point to raise - the thing I'm trying to get at is that we needn't slavishly reproduce the writing styles of RSs simply because they're RSs. Popcornduff (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
    MOS:TM does the opposite of deferring to sources. It's quite clear that we choose, from among styles in use, the one that's closest to a normal-looking proper name. Hence Lego, not LEGO, even though the latter is more common in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 06:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
    iPhone, eBay, etc. we do defer to sources as to deciding whether unusual capitalizations are widely used instead of "normal-looking" ones. (And I don't think the all-caps form of Lego is actually more common, except maybe in specialist magazines.) oknazevad (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Masem, also per WP:RETAIN if that usage was already established in the ship's article. For an older ship's article that is recently created, use the usage per the sources for that ship. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 16:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Our current policy and guidance would support this approach. Currently, BOTH usages are considered acceptable (with the caveat that we be consistent within any given article), and once a usage is established we should not change it without discussion and consensus. We could thus adopt Massem’s suggestion with minimum disruption. It can be seen as a clarification of current guidance, not a rejection of it. Blueboar (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Well, this is a discussion about changing the usage, so I'm not sure "we should not change it without discussion and consensus" is an argument one way or the other? -- Beland (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of ThoughtIdRetired's !vote

Discussion moved from #Survey section – Levivich 22:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. (1) Looking at the essay WP:MODERNLANG, it says, for example: "... Note: Although they can safely be replaced with among and while, amongst and whilst are still commonly used in British English." So, if a form is becoming archaic, but is still in use, it is OK to use in Wikipedia. (2) To what extent is "she" (for ships) archaic? Lots of actual and implied cites from both sides of the argument here - so I suggest it has some way to go before it could be labelled archaic. As a cited form, I would add Practical Boat Owner, a widely respected magazine that uses "she" (e.g.[45]) - I suspect that doing otherwise would lose them readers. (3) The fact that both forms are to be found outside Wikipedia seems to be a good case for maintaining the status quo within Wikipedia - i.e. both "she" and "it" are acceptable, but you may not swap an article to the other form. (4) Is anyone offended by "she" for a ship? I don't know, but if they are, then they should be offended by (in Latin) mensa (f) (a table) or (in French) la plume (f) (the pen). (4) The argument: "but language evolves". This statement is correct, but it should be allowed to evolve at its natural rate. That allows us and future generations to understand reasonably fully William Shakespeare and the King James Bible, and with no difficulty William Wordsworth, Charles Dickens, Thomas Hardy, and many others. I do not believe that the essay on which this proposal is based seeks to unnaturally accelerate language change. However, I think the proposal does. Therefore the proposal should be rejected. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, some people are offended about the use of "she" for ships to the point they are moved to repeatedly vandalizing the Scottish Maritime Museum, which is changing its signage in response. There are certainly movements to deal with some unfortunate implications of grammatical gender in other languages, but I don't see how those are relevant to an English usage question. I also haven't proposed "some people find it offensive" as a reason for changing the guideline, though that may be the reason the language is itself changing. -- Beland (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
      In considering offence, I was looking for any possible justification for following your proposal. I have to add that I react badly (i.e. a detuned sort of offence) to people trying to mess with the English language and the associated maritime heritage. Of course, you might well regard that as a little precious (most instances of anything approaching offence are susceptible to such an accusation). I am not alone in this sort of thinking - so being offended by the choice of usage is not just the preserve of those who advocate "it". Of course, I would hope never to vandalise a museum label and I can get along (I hope!) with any diversity of opinion within Wikipedia. What I am advocating is that we continue with the existing rule on "she for ships", which is acceptance of diversity of opinion.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Interesting that Practical Boat Owner is also British, which fits in with the American/Commonwealth differences cited above. -- Beland (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
      So is this a British English versus American English issue? What about the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea using "she/her" - surely this is an intergovernmental organisation?ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Trovatore's !vote

Discussion moved from #Survey section – Levivich 22:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Look, let's get one thing out of the way — saying that an argument is ILIKEIT or IDONTLIKEIT is not a refutation; not on style issues. Although we will never go too far from what other publications are doing, there is no "reliable source" for what our style should be. It is always, at some level, going to come down to preference.
    Popcornduff is "always in favour of a more modern, plain-English style", and is absolutely entitled to that preference and to push for WP to move closer to it. But others are just as entitled to favor a more traditional, elegant style, and to militate for     that preference.
    One of the things Wikipedia does best, given this sort of dispute, is simply not choose between them. I think that's what we should do here. --Trovatore (talk) 22:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I must object to the suggestion that a more modern style is less "elegant". ;P Popcornduff (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
You don't find it less elegant, but many do. I think this is necessarily going to come down to subjective questions like that, and we might as well accept that and get on with it. --Trovatore (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
It is a simple matter of logic that the "more modern" style is less "elegant", because a writer using the "older" style has available (in many situations) 2 pronouns to use ("it" and "she" or "its" and "her"), so allowing sentences that employ these pronouns to refer to 2 different entities (when one of them is a ship or a boat). In short, there are situations when use of "she/her" is easier to read.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
That has to be some of the most desperate reasoning I’ve ever heard. EEng 04:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Beland's question

Discussion moved from #Survey section – Levivich 22:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Question! Given the research editors have done in response to this question, it looks like there may be a strong divide between American usage, which seems to be against "she" for ships (haven't seen an exception so far) and British/Commonwealth usage, where the practice is disfavored in some general-audience publications but continues in some important ones like major broadcasters. How would editors feel about keeping the two varieties but more closely following national practice? Specifically, I mean changing the advice to say that articles written in American English should use "it" for ships, but articles in other varieties of English are free to use either variety as long as they do it consistently and aren't changed back and forth arbitrarily? -- Beland (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

This is just going over already very well-trampled ground. Links to the even longer previous discussions are needed. Johnbod (talk) 23:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
@Johnbod: Any pointers? The only previous discussion I found was from almost 20 years ago, and was arguing about whether or not this usage was offensive, which is a different question than whether or not it is archaic or regional or confusing or advised against by widely accepted style guides or general-audience publications. -- Beland (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
There was a huge one, I think in the last 2 years. I'm not a nautical editor - ask at the specialist pages, & MILHIST. This discussion shouldn't proceed without notifying specialist projects. Johnbod (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
@Johnbod: WP:MILHIST and WP:SHIPS have already been notified; I'm not sure what else you might be referring to? -- Beland (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Ok, good. Well, it certainly wasn't 20 years ago (well before WP was online, btw). Let's hope someone with a link comes along. Johnbod (talk) 02:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I did a search of MOS talk pages and found a bunch. Added a list to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive (ships as "she") and will add this one there when it's archived. -- Beland (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Here is an example of US usage of "she" in Wooden Boat magazine[46]. I found this in less than a minute. I suspect there are plenty more.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
The attribution at the bottom says the author is based in Nova Scotia, so that seems like an example of Canadian English, which tends to be partway between American and British. -- Beland (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
So try another article from Wooden Boat - here[47] is one written by an US writer who teaches teaches writing and literature at Phillips Academy, Andover. He also holds a 100-ton masters license and has logged over one hundred thousand miles at sea, mostly in traditional working vessels. Needless to say, he uses female pronouns for ships.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
OK, that's interesting; it's not purely British. This is definitely a specialist publication though, so it doesn't bear on usage when writing for a general audience. -- Beland (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Levivich's !vote

Discussion moved from #Survey section – Levivich 22:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support it. She is outdated and sexist, a vestige of the days when women were not considered to be fully people. Sources have abandoned the usage, except apparently in Britain and some areas of the nautical community. Wikipedia is for an international audience and should follow the prevalent modern usage. – Levivich 16:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
    • ...a vestige of the days when women were not considered to be fully people. What a ridiculous notion. Of course it isn't. It's an acknowledgement that the ship was regarded as the seaman's mother (hence the term mothership for larger ships that looked after smaller ships and boats). What on earth could be sexist or offensive about that? How on earth is that implying that women were not considered to be "fully people"? Honestly, people really do need to get out more. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
      • Having two sets of pronouns, one for men, and one for women and some inanimate objects, does raise the question why inanimate objects would be grouped with women and not men. It is true that women had far fewer rights in the England of previous centuries, so that seems like a reasonable inference. Regarding ships as mothers and not fathers does not make much sense in a society that doesn't have some sort of strong (arguably sexist) difference in gender roles that would make mothers and fathers worth distinguishing. -- Beland (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
    I don't think many fathers have fully-developed placentas. Bus stop (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
    That doesn't make fathers ineligible to be considered parents. Maybe that's the difference in perspective? Some people say "men and women should be treated differently because they have different roles in reproduction!" and other people say "men and women should be treated the same because they are all people with equal rights and capabilities!" I have to say "a boat can't be a man because men don't have wombs" does sound sexist when I say it out loud because it doesn't seem like a reasonable qualification for the job. In fact women have been excluded from navies for a long time because they have wombs. -- Beland (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
    Ships were referred to in the female tense to acknowledge their power, importance, beauty, and attractiveness; hardly prejudicial notions against womankind. Broichmore (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
    A fair number of people would consider that sentiment sexist because it focuses on women's beauty more than attributes like intelligence, and because by choosing women and not people in general for these attributes, implies that beauty and attractiveness are not masculine attributes, essentially reinforcing stereotypes that are harmful to people of both of these genders. -- Beland (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
    Well then maybe it's prejudicial to man-kind. I can't believe people are still spouting this don't-you-enjoy-being-put-on-a-pedestal? dreck this late in the day. EEng 14:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
    You see, it's not that we were sexist, we just didn't want them to be burdened with the stress of voting and employment and entering into contracts without their husband's approval, because we care about women so much, because they are so important, powerful, and attractive, which we would show them with a friendly pat on the bum. – Levivich 17:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Andrew D.'s !vote

Discussion moved from #Survey section – Levivich 22:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Mx. Granger's !vote

Discussion moved from #Survey section – Levivich 22:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support it. Should be common sense—we should follow the standard usage in modern reliable sources and style guides. Our articles that use "she" look antiquated and conspicuous. Usage in other languages, which is one argument that has been brought up in favor of "she", is not relevant because this is the English Wikipedia. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Necrothesp's comment

Discussion moved from #Survey section – Levivich 22:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Atsme's !vote

Discussion moved from #Survey section – Levivich 22:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Uhm...while this isn't about a specific human name or title, there are some useful parallels in WP:COMMONNAME. Since ships are inanimate objects that have no gender, we turn to traditional and common usage. Atsme Talk 📧 18:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I dont believe that ships are commonly referred to as "she" among the common readers. I understand tradition and those within the know will use "she" like jargon, but i don't think its beneficial in Wikipedia to be inconsistent about it. Either we use "she" all the time, or we use "it" all the time.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
No one thinks a ship is really female. And no one thinks that females are comparable to ships. We should not change language because some make unhinged arguments. Please tell me how referring to a ship as "she" or "her" is sexist. Bus stop (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
If you don't think it's actually female, you should have no problem following MOS:GNL. There's a whole damn section right below this entitled #Why some people consider it sexist in which you have comented. You don't want someone to explain why its sexist to you; it has been you just don't believe it and are being uncooperative. If you have some form of amnesia and legitimately do not remember reading, commenting in, or even the existence of that section: scroll down. No one is arguing to change language despite your hyperbole. Editors, including myself have shown corpus evidence that shows a century long decline in uses of "she" in reference to ships, I've shown that across millions of books for the past 30 years a supermajority of collocations with "ship" use the neuter pronoun. Multiple contemporary style guides recommend against the uses of "she" and the continued denial of these in order to push some superstition or historical pretension is annoying to say the least. Bludgeoning the process by repeating the same claims editors have rejected will not make them true. If your points are actually strong people will agree with them without you making the same tired arguments over and over again across threads. Wug·a·po·des​ 19:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
MOS:GNL says Ships may be referred to using either feminine forms ("she", "her", "hers") or neuter forms ("it", "its"). Either usage is acceptable, but each article should be internally consistent and employ one or the other exclusively. Bus stop (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
It's safe to say the MOS is in question. So bringing up the MOS, isn't a valid reason to not change it.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I introduced the wording to this discussion only for informational purposes. It wasn't in this discussion previously. Bus stop (talk) 19:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
It also says, at the very beginning before the exception quoted, "Use gender-neutral language...where this can be done with clarity and precision" and the point here is that we can do so---following the spirit of the guideline---without some archaic exception for ships. (edit conflict) Wug·a·po·des​ 19:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
"some archaic exception for ships" Does anyone really think ships are female? Does anyone really think females are like ships? I think the answer to both questions is "no". The policy is fine as it is: "Either usage is acceptable, but each article should be internally consistent and employ one or the other exclusively." Bus stop (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
You literally had an exchange below where in multiple comments you compared women and ships to each other. If ships were called "he" we would be implying that they were prone to sinking. We use "she" because we would like to think that a ship will stay afloat. This is analogous to our preference for liking to think that a female will carry a pregnancy to birth and that both will survive a hazardous journey. A ship is analogous to pregnancy in that it provides life-support to vulnerable inhabitants. When an editor pointed out how absurd that sounded, you switched to arguing about "refinement" and back tracking by claiming that no one thinks women are like ships despite editors above making such claims (e.g. GoodDay's comment: ships are considered to be (like females) unpredictable. If you really think (1) ships are not women (2) women are not ships (3) English does not have grammatical gender, then you should have no problem recommending the use of "it" makes clear that ships are not women, women are not ships, and follows the contemporary English grammar as shown by corpora and style guides. It's obvious you just like the gendered form and find the neuter "coarse" and "unrefined", but your delicate sensibilities do not change the century long trend in usage and obvious contemporary style. It's ironic that you're criticizing others for trying to change language and poor rationales when below you've cherry picked sources and here have resigned to simply claiming that you like it. I don't have any interest in arguing this point further because I doubt it will be productive, but I wanted to point out to you how poorly your arguments come across given your constant comments and changes of tack. I suggest you read this section of WP:BLUDGEON specifically You have already made your points clear and hammering them is disruptive....Each time you use an argument, it becomes weaker. Continuing to argue the same point doesn't reinforce it and can be annoying to others who have already considered your opinion. and consider how it applies to this situation. Wug·a·po·des​ 21:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Sandstein's !vote

Discussion moved from #Survey section – Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support it. This conforms to current style guides and increasing practice. It is also less surprising for readers who are unaware of the "she" convention, leaving them to wonder who this woman is we seem to refer to in ship articles. Sandstein 12:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
    As an educational entity the encyclopedia should expose readers to a firmly entrenched facet of the English language rather than shield them from a grammatical nuance that they may find initially off-putting. I don't know that "less surprising" is a valid argument. Bus stop (talk) 14:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
    WP:NOTTEXTBOOK is a good counter-point.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
    Blue Pumpkin Pie—wouldn't we be sweeping under the rug a well-established practice by eliminating the pronouns "she" and "her" from ships? Isn't it irresponsible of us to suppress a standard aspect of the language? Bus stop (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
    A well-established practice and a standard aspect of the language are two different situations in my eyes. I do see this as a common practice among those with inclinations to ships, but i do not see this as a standard aspect of the english language. To me, it is jargon and has more cultural roots and most definitely not universal.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
    I can see little reason to dismiss those aspects that are firmly entrenched in the language. We do not make up the English language. The English language pre-exists before we set about writing an encyclopedia with it. We use the language as we find it. Any reconstructing of the language constitutes artificiality and contrivance, making us activists rather than simply impartial conveyors of reliably-sourced information, as we purport to be. Bus stop (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
    If this was universal among all regions or even if it was universal among one specific region of english speakers, i would incline to agree that it is a standard. But the usage is not consistent enough to suggest this is "standard" english. If it was a standard, it wouldn't be so inconsistent. Using "it" is a standard across all english-speaking languages even if not all regions use it as consistent as others makes more sense to me than using an archaic form of describing ships that isn't accepted in all english-speaking regions. This has nothing to do with being an activist. i have no political view on this.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
    You are splitting hairs. "She" and "her" is in widespread use for ships and even if its use is on the decline it is not our job to obviate its use. Bus stop (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
    I'm not splitting hairs. I'm providing clarity on my stance on how i see this. I rather we be consistent than inconsistent, and using "it" just is the more logical sense. We lose nothing of encyclopedic value by choosing "it" over "she/her". It would be more beneficial because we will be consistent with other english-speaking regions that don't do this.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
    "We lose nothing of encyclopedic value" You are pretending that the language is not of "encyclopedic value". In this instance I think the language is of encyclopedic value. We certainly should be conveying to the reader that ships are commonly referred to as "she" and "her". Bus stop (talk) 18:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
    That information can and should be included in an article on nautical jargon. Your argument makes about as much sense as advocating that the article on Shakespeare should be in the form of a sonnet. EEng 19:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
    Obviously I disagree. Ruling out normal language constitutes a dumbing-down of the project especially at those articles (on ships) that would naturally use that language. The problem here is the insistence on consistency across the project; we don't need a community-wide policy on normal language, and policy presently allows for this variation but only requires consistency of this sort within a given article. This will be my final word on this subject and in this discussion. Under discussion are not Shakespeare sonnets but rather fairly standard English. Bus stop (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree. There is not a one-size-fits-all formula for when to "surprise" and when not to "surprise". That is because we are an educational institution. The problem with this solution is that it places the reader in the dark about an important practice, that being the practice of referring to ships as "she" and "her". Of course "its" works. It would be laughable to think that "its" does not serve this purpose, and current policy allows for both possibilities, but not in the same article. But when speaking about ships there is a longstanding practice to refer to ships as "she" and "her". The solution being debated in this discussion is to shield readers from that practice despite the subject matter of the article being specifically about ships. WP:SURPRISE has its applicability—editors writing about ships can alert readers that contrary to usual practice, ships are often referred to as "she" and "her". This preserves the language and avoids WP:SURPRISE. One reason some will not like that solution is that it preserves what they see as sexism, and I'm sure other reasons would be presented as well. Bus stop (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I respect your view, but to point out the implications...if we follow the logic of allowing the full variation of the English language in order to demonstrate to readers the full range, that would also overturn the consensus in favor of using gender-neutral terms like "flight attendant" instead of "steward and stewardess". And also pretty much every other rule in the Manual of Style. Indeed, the whole point of a style guide is to constrain usage more narrowly than the constraints of generally accepted English usage; otherwise, any book on English grammar and usage would probably do. Professional organizations have style guides because using the full variation of English expression results in a publication that looks unprofessional, is slightly harder to read because readers need to know how to interpret all the variations, and distracts readers from the information we're trying to convey. There's widespread consensus that Wikipedia should have a Manual of Style, and if we want to reconsider that, it's a much bigger conversation. -- Beland (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "There's widespread consensus that Wikipedia should have a Manual of Style, and if we want to reconsider that, it's a much bigger conversation. A straw man argument is a form of argument based on giving the impression of refuting an argument while actually refuting an argument that was never presented in the first place. Bus stop (talk) 03:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Mjroots's !vote

Discussion moved from #Survey section. – Levivich 01:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - there is no need to change the accepted convention that it is the writer of the article's choice on whether to use "she" or "it". If you want more ship articles written in the neuter, then there are many thousands of ships that have redlinks and need articles writing on them. The solution is at your fingertips. Mjroots (talk) 03:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
    What you are failing to understand is that sailors are associated with ships. Their language usage has bearing on this question. I'm American and I once traveled by ship. I heard the reference to the ship as "she" and at first I was startled. After a nanosecond's thinking about it, it made sense to me, and it did not sound old-fashioned. When you are on a ship at sea (or at least far from shore) it is your life-support. This is not dissimilar to the life-support provided by a female for a gestating young. These are just linguistic analogies. There is nothing remotely sexist about them. What you are trying to do is rewire the brain. It thinks in a certain way because some pieces of information are analogous to other pieces of information. Bus stop (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
    Thank your for helping us understand that sailors are associated with ships. EEng 02:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
    Sure, that narrow analogy is relatively defensible, and if that were the only implication of this choice and there were no other context, it might not be a big deal. It's far from the only explanation given as to why ships are "she", many of which are satirical and blatantly sexist. It still results in comparisons between women and inanimate objects without also comparing men to inanimate objects (unlike male and female connectors, or languages with grammatical gender), causing inanimate objects to share pronouns with only women - implying they have lower status. And among other things it results in the weirdness that ships can't be male, even if they have male names. -- Beland (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of SMcCandish's !vote

Discussion moved from #Survey section. – Levivich 01:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Use it. (But we need not add a rule saying this, just remove the pseudo-rules calling for she, which I think are in three different pages here but were inserted without any consensus record we can find in the talk page archives). We've been over this many times before, seemingly about every year or so (mostly at article talk pages). I concur with various respondents above (and in every previous round of this recurrent discussion, and now below) that she is an archaic, pretentious affectation and rather sexist (or often perceived as such), as well as peculiar to a few narrow spheres of writing (and outside them to a few particular publishers who like to do some old-fashioned things as a branding mechanism), to the extent it's still used at all any longer beyond historical fiction. "Well, sailors and navy people do it" = WP:SSF. And we've also now seen sources disproving that navy people always do it, including in the UK where someone below asserts without evidence that she is a norm and it uncommon.

    Look, WP does not care what specialists do when writing for other specialists, because WP isn't a specialist publication, and it is not possible to account for every stylistic whim of every specialization, or WP would basically be unreadable, and editors would spend almost all their time fighting for control over articles that are within the scopes of multiple specialties. This is covered in the MoS FAQ at the top of this talk page.

    We developed an in-house style guide for very good reasons, and it follows contemporary, mainstream, formal English for very good reasons. WP isn't written in salty dialect, headache-inducing jargon, bleeding-edge slang, or quaint Victorianisms. When other major style guides are in favor of it, then so is WP, for the same reason we don't write ain't, refer to problems as ornery, conclude that positive reviews make a movie badass, introduce a quotation with sayeth, or refer to a hiccup as a synchronous diaphragmatic flutter. Maybe more to the sexism point and the inappropriateness of writing the encyclopedia in the in-group lingo of one of our subjects, WP does not refer to the girlfriend of a male rapper or a Hell's Angels biker as his "bitch". It does not matter that he does and that his fellows do, or even that hip-hop and biker magazines might also do it.

    Soon or later it just has to sink in that WP follows topical sources for facts pertaining to the topic not for how to write about the the facts and the topic for an encyclopedic audience. How can we still be having this kind of discussion after 18 years? And with the same few people who absolutely know better by now, but for some reason just will not give up trying to make WP write like insider publications, no matter how many times the answer is "no". It just boggles the mind.
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC); rev'd. 18:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

    PS: We should support it also from a WP:CREEP viewpoint: There simply is insufficient justification to make a special exception for ships. This RfC is not about making a new rule, its about removing a bogus one that we have in at least three places, and apparently inserted just to make two wikiprojects happier. Going the it route will also be more consonant with all the rest of MoS and with WP editing practices; the common thread running through the entire MoS is do not make an exception to a general rule unless that exception is overwhelmingly dominant across the reliable sources that are independent of the topic. That's just not the case here. The she style is still somewhat common (though decreasingly rapidly), and it is not dominant except in the materials put out in specific topical sources.
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:07, 28 November 2019 (UTC); rev'd. 18:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

    I don't think the use of "she" in reference to ships is sexist. But I would concede that the use of "bitch" in relation to "the girlfriend of a male rapper or a Hell's Angels biker" is sexist. Bus stop (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
    Not if we balance things by describing Lindsay Graham, Devin Nunes, and Jim Jordan as Donald Trump’s bitches. EEng 15:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
    @EEng: Ha ha! BTW, it's not lost on me how ironic it is that I'm here arguing in favor of it for gender-neutrality reasons, after not so long ago getting the torches-and-pitchforks treatment for using the same word in way that angered some people, over alleged gender insensitivity. [sigh]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
    It's not whether something "is" sexist, in some kind of magically objective way. The issue is that more and more off-site reliable sources tell us it is regarded that way, and more and more editors feel that it is. And it's not the dominant usage (except in topically specialized publications), so we have no reason to impose it on a general audience.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:07, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Note to closer: Just head-counting is not going to be sufficient. Compare user IDs of respondents to those that appear on the participants lists of WikiProject Military History and WikiProject Ships, and you'll find that the vast majority of those in favor of she are a bloc vote all using the same weak reasoning and the same defiance of what the sources are telling us. Opposition to establishment of she as a convention on WP is much broader. This is important as a WP:CONLEVEL policy matter, and under a long string of ArbCom decisions that wikiprojects cannot control content in topics they'd like to WP:OWN. Wikiprojects have no authority and are not walled gardens; they are simply pages at which editors mingle for topical collaboration purposes, and the main reason they exist is article assessment and peer review. When they're used for wikipolitical lobbying to carve out special pleading exceptions from general principles, it leads to WP:FALSECONSENSUS problems. Please also note that there are essentially four views espoused in this RfC: 1) leave the MoS line items as-is (permitting and maybe loosely recommending she for ships); 2) remove that material as not having consensus to be a guideline (or, as some put it, not something MoS should have a rule about); 3) replace it with a clear recommendation to use it; 4) replace it with a clear recommendation to use she. Claims of a false dichotomy of just "require she" or "require it" are clearly off-base (and led to an attempt to start a redundant "anti-RfC" below this one, recycling the same arguments).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

  • there are real people who did a lot of work to produce each of those FAs, and
  • a change in MOS would put all of those articles out of compliance with WP:WIAFA,
then the opposition of (some, not all-- see the examples I give) ship editors becomes understandable. Adjusting that many articles will be a tremendous burden to MILHIST.

And there is the potential to overwhelm WP:FAR; there was a similar situation ten years ago when inline citation requirements were added for FAs. See WP:URFA for how articles needing inline citations were processed over time.

If this proposal goes through, I will propose at WP:FAR that we follow the process used when inline citations were added. That is, set up a list of all ship FAs using gender pronouns, allow a set period for editors to adjust (say six months), and then begin to process them through FAR, but with no main editor having more than one article at FAR at a time. So, these ship articles can be adjusted methodically, over a time period (say one or two years total), so that editors, MILHIST, and FAR are not overwhelmed. The positions of some ship editors are understandable, in terms of the amount of work they will need to do to keep ships in compliance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Adding inline citations sounds like a major, labor-intensive task that requires fetching books from the library. Changing pronouns can be semi-automated, and with JS Wiki Browser I could probably convert 100 articles per day myself. About how many featured articles on ships are there? -- Beland (talk) 05:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I can't tell how many there are (I think it would require manually counting on the page). I would be wary of turning a bot lose on FAs, though; I'd like to see ship FA writers take on board the writing style in the samples given in my !vote and make similar adjustments themselves, rather than changing a lot of "she" to "it". Having read scores of ship FACs, it is a pleasure when one hits the well written ones. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:39, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured articles says there are only about 5,700 featured articles total. Even if ship articles are 10% of that, it would be entirely feasible for me to fix them myself. I would happily do so. JS Wiki Browser is not a bot; it's basically a faster way of doing search-and-replace in the web browser. It requires manual review of all changes, but you have to do less clicking around. I've already used it on tens of thousands of articles fixing similar problems, including the occasional featured article. It would not be quite so straightforward if we decide to go with no pronouns for ships, but given that there are such a small number of affected featured articles, I'd happily fix them all manually just to get this resolved and take this objection off the table. The idea of not being able to decide that our highest-quality articles are defective in some way because it means that we'd actually have to change them...that just seems backwards. If the objections that this usage sounds dated or sexist is legitimate, it should be all the more important to change the featured articles, not a roadblock. -- Beland (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I am glad to hear that it seems do-able (and that my FAR plan won't be needed). But I am wondering if you might post on article talk pages before activating JS Wiki Browser on FAs or leave FAs 'til last. We can hope that some ship FA editors will take the HMS Calliope (1884) example on board (can't believe I said that), do the changes themselves, and find ways to rephrase rather than use a lot of "it" in place of "she". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm willing to do the minimum required to keep featured articles in compliance, but I'm not going to go around pestering other editors to go above and beyond the standard, or intentionally leave featured articles out of compliance when it would be easier to fix them than complain that they need to be fixed. I'm sure if there's a policy change it'll be announced on project pages and show up in watch lists as articles are changed over, and on talk pages if editors keep using the deprecated style. It's awesome that some people put in a lot of work to get featured status for a given article, but that doesn't mean we should expect them to stick around and maintain that indefinitely. I'd prefer to think making articles high-quality is work we all share. -- Beland (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Within the relatively new field of stem cell research we find "Under the right conditions in the body or a laboratory, stem cells divide to form more cells called daughter cells. These daughter cells either become new stem cells (self-renewal) or become specialized cells (differentiation) with a more specific function, such as blood cells, brain cells, heart muscle cells or bone cells." This usage would unlikely be "sexist" or "old fashioned" because of the newness of the field of research. Agree? Disagree? Bus stop (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Irrelevant whataboutism. Stem cells are actually living biological things, unlike ships, which are inanimate objects, and use neuter pronouns like all inanimate objects when not writing in poetic or metaphorical tone that's is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. oknazevad (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Cell division says the phenomenon was discovered in 1835, so I'm not sure it's a new term. We could research the etymology and whether or not anyone considers it unacceptable or if everyone just uses it because of the definition of female gamete - the germ line that contributes most (or in this case all) of the non-DNA parts of the cell. How would that clarify thinking about "she" for ships? There are lots of different genderized terms coined in lots of different eras with lots of levels of social acceptability in various cultures. -- Beland (talk) 06:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I notice that it is proposed here by User:SMcCandlish that the opinions of anyone who participates in WP:Military History or WP:Ships should be ignored - this treats the editors who write the articles as second class citizens - if so this RFC would be a farce - imagine if members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism were prohibited from discussions of Gender related subjects. This seems to suggest that any considerations of maintenance of FAs is a joke, because the editors who worked on the articles are considered to be unpersons. The proposers should realise that the consequences of this sort of behaviour will be drive editors away. If this is the intention, then you should be honest about it - if not you should redact such comments and apologise.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that's the case, but editors should be more self-aware of their own bias. If you were never taught to call a ship or a vehicle a she outside military, why is it ok for military to use it in formal english? Most sources confirm they do it out of tradition, rather than adding any professional tone. So if that is the case, why should Wikipedia adhere to tradition?Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 20:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
An actual quote from SMcCandlish is "Note to closer: Just head-counting is not going to be sufficient. Compare user IDs of respondents to those that appear on the participants lists of WikiProject Military History and WikiProject Ships..." - why say this if you are treating editors as individuals. If I am part of some underclass whose opinions can be ignored then you should really let me know this so I can stop wasting time and effort on a website where my efforts are not welcome.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I also agree that vote-counting isn't going to be a good idea to reach consensus. I do also believe if you have a background or bias in military history and ships too matters in this discussion. In a way its local consensus and WP:OWN.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 20:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
You are saying that the opinions of those who disagree with you are of no value and should be discounted - does this just apply to this discussion, or more widely.? It is very disturbing that it is seen to be acceptable to dismiss editors like this.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
All i'm saying is that it matters in the discussion, nothing more and nothing less. Because as i stated before, i'm not for WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and WP:OWN. I want Military/navy editors to treat the discussion seriously as an encyclopedia for everyone, not just a military/navy club. So if the majority of the military use WP:ILIKEIT-type reasoning, than those reason should be discounted from the overall discussion. I'm not saying that is the case. All i'm saying is that all these factors in the discussion matter. After all, these articles are created to be read by others, not just people who share our interests.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 20:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Blue Pumpkin Pie—I am not part of a "bloc vote". I only go by the best quality sources. The Economist is not a "maritime source". They write She never reached her destination: in June that year she was sunk by a squadron of British ships. For more than three centuries her final resting place remained a mystery. But on December 4th 2015 Juan Manuel Santos, Colombia’s president, announced that a team of archaeologists had found the wreck 30 miles off the Colombian coast. He promised to recover the ship and its contents, worth as much as $17bn, and build a museum in Cartagena to house them. There is certainly nothing grammatically incorrect about that. I also fail to see it as "sexist". Bus stop (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
The sexist angle, you have nothing to worry about. Because regardless if considered sexist, i'm not going to vote because of it. But i definitely think we should redefine what is "standard english". A lot of sources will attempt to add historical or poetic flare to them by calling them she, but if they're not objectively factual and just perceived, no matter how many sources choose to call it she, i think it matters why they use she for ships. I think we need a WP:NOTTRADITION rule.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 23:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Brandmeister's !vote

Discussion moved from #Survey section. – Levivich 01:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Ah, good find on the Navy style guide! -- Beland (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The EF Education First page is not the EF style guide; it's a page that's teaching readers about the full variety of the English language - like a dictionary does, but for grammar. It's not saying which pronoun EF would use in its own voice. Plenty of dictionaries document that "she" is used for ships sometimes; that's certainly not in dispute. -- Beland (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment the appropriate guidelines are going to be changed if consensus is reached for "it" to be universal. Using guidelines to prevent changing the very guidelines in question is not a good logical counterpoint. As for Education First, they accept "she" as a common form of referring to an object, but that's not a good excuse for Wikipedia to use she as well. The same can be said with the Guardian link. It doesn't surprise me that the Navy chooses to use she. It's just the way it is. Russian politicians may refer to their country as she, and some cars as well. Its commonly known to being jargon, just was standard use for a time. It's not standard use now, and the quotes you provided show that its been questioned before. The question is whether this is navy-lingo or is it standard use outside navy talk?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Brandmeister, Chicago Manual of Style's section 8.118 Pronouns referring to vessels says: When a pronoun is used to refer to a vessel, the neuter it or its (rather than she or her) is preferred. Schazjmd (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Already noted. Brandmeistertalk 21:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Alansohn's !vote

Discussion moved from #Survey section. – Levivich 01:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose As a speaker of US English, a language with no grammatical gender, T find the whole gender issue for words unbearably confusing in my efforts to end my status as a functional monoglot. Why would the word "bridge" have a gender and why on Earth would a bridge be masculine in Spanish and feminine in German? If there were a river crossing at an imaginary border between Spain and Germany, would the bridge need to undergo a gender change at its midpoint at the border? Sure, the use of "she" to refers to boats is anachronistic and often comes off as forced to me; "Isn't she a beauty?" But the gendered usage is a longstanding tradition and no ship has ever expressed an issue with being designated with the female gender or indicated am alternative preferred pronoun. Until we have far clearer consensus against the gendered usage or the ships start speaking for themselves, let's keep this quaint gender designation. Alansohn (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
    I have a few questions about your rationale I was hoping you could clarify. It's true that no ship has ever expressed an issue with being designated with the female gender, but people have. Why don't their opinions matter? If I named my toilet "Alansohn", and then said I was going to keep calling my toilet "Alansohn" until my toilet starts speaking for itself (never mind what Alansohn thinks about it), wouldn't that be... shitty of me? Why don't the style guides convince you that there is a clear consensus–for 20 years, in the US and in the UK–against the gendered usage? Thanks in advance for clarifying. – Levivich 21:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
    Levivich, your "arguments" undermine themselves. There is a longstanding usage of grammatical gender in languages worldwide; it was used in Old English and though this has largely faded away for Gender in English in the modern day, the use of of gender persists for ships. While I understand that you want to make the greatest possible WP:DICK of yourself, your decision on what to call your toilet offers nothing more than evidence of sheer argumentative dickishness at its worst. That ships are assigned a female gender in English is no less worthy of elimination than the fact that bridges are assigned a masculine gender in Spanish and a feminine gender in German; only a fool would argue that grammatical gender should be eliminated because there are actual people who are male or female. Alansohn (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
    This is why I shouldn't thank people in advance. – Levivich 23:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
    Whether Alansohn is reasonably offended, his response was severely linguistically ignorant. But I think other posts here and at the other thread that's been soft-redirected here already have this covered.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
    @Alansohn: The real question isn't whether its grammatically correct, it's whether using "she" provides the most encyclopedic tone that Wikipedia can provide.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
    Blue Pumpkin Pie, as long as we agree that there's no grammatical issue, of course it's encyclopedic in tone based on the thousands of reliable and verifiable sources that support the usage. Yes, there are other sources that oppose the usage, but that does not preclude the use of "she" nor does it justify a prohibition of the usage. Beyond the sheer WP:Dickishness of Levivich, it's equally sad to see SMcCandlish make a failed attempt to rebut an argument based on an unsupported claim that it was "severely linguistically ignorant". Alansohn (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
    Well that's where I disagree. Just because it is grammatically correct, does not mean we are using the appropriate tone for an encyclopedia. I believe sources are the proof that "she" isn't standard use anymore as others make it out to be. Especially in 2019 (i'm not making a stereotypical "this is current year". i'm literally saying that the term has been in questioned this year and recognized sources have stop using it as a standard". I have not seen a valid reason for "She". A lot of the reasons given convince me more to engage and educate people. Because they are opting for tradition and they confuse tradition as standardization.
Here are the facts: The usage of "she" for ships although grammatically accepted, is not standard usage. Some sources may choose to use as a standard, but its not a standard overall WP:JARGON is a good example of avoiding this, and there is no real exception to make ships an exception. Even if the majority of them used "she", i wouldn't have voted for "it", just because that's not a universally accepted way of describing a ship for the general audience. First time readers have found it odd and unnatural in Wikipedia. It used to be, but not anymore. In my opinion, it shifts the tone. Those that use she, makes it sound like Wikipedia is more emotionally inclined to ships.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Blue Pumpkin Pie—words are generally not bad. Usages can be bad or good. Thus far this entire RfC is being conducted in the abstract. Present some actual example and let us discuss that actual example. Let us discuss how and in what ways the usage of "she" or "her" in relation to ships causes harm. Provide an example by linking to it or quoting it. You are referencing an "appropriate tone for an encyclopedia". Of course we should not have an inappropriate tone in an encyclopedia. But you are going about this the wrong way. You don't ban words and usages in order to avoid inappropriate tones in an encyclopedia. If the usage is grammatically correct, and used by the most erudite sources, then it seems to me we have justification to retain that usage for ourselves. Bus stop (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I chose to drop the stick with you for a reason Bus stop, i think you know my point fairly well. I dont want to explain why you are exaggerating my reasoning. But i explained why "she" in this case, does not provide a nuetral encyclopedic tone. And we now have proven that in the modern age, "she" is not a standard academic term for ships anymore. Its now a preferred tradition. the fact that general reliable sources use it over she and the fact that experts are 50/50. i wouldn't even come close to calling that as "most".Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Blue Pumpkin Pie—this RfC feels like McCarthyism. On the flimsiest evidence we are prepared to ban usages that are found in good quality sources. We don't have to get on the bandwagon of banning innocuous language. Bus stop (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I have nothing else to say to you Bus stop. I'll continue to treat my point just as serious as others. but i'm not going to engage in attempts to de-value other people's point or counterpoint. If you don't take my point seriously, you don't have to respond. With you in particular, you know my stance completely, and i've respectfully provided counterpoints. If you can't do the same, there is no point continuing.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of TheDragonFire300's !vote

Discussion moved from #Survey section. – Levivich 01:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose any one umbrella pronoun for ships on all of Wikipedia. Remember that cultures are different, and in Australia/UK, we do commonly use "she" to refer to ships; I understand that the US does not, so perhaps either "she" or "it" for British English and "it" for US English might be justified instead. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 23:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
    It would appear that the preponderance of British-English style guides found thus far prefer "it"; if you have know of others that haven't been included, you are welcome to add them below. CThomas3 (talk) 23:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
    @Cthomas3: From what I've heard, in Australia, she is more common to refer to ships; they're rarely referred to as it. But I'm not arguing for either pronoun; only opposing any umbrella pronoun for ships for all Wikipedia. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 02:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
    But why, TheDragonFire300? You've not provided any actual rationale, much less refuted the multiple rationales for using it. And this is not a WP:ENGVAR matter. There's no evidence presented of any kind that leads us to think that she is overwhelmingly dominant in any national variety of ENglish; rather, it's common among maritime and navy people (and the elderly), and uncommon otherwise (more so all the time). If we have a choice between using a pronoun, it, that even die-hard sailors know is frequently used for ships, or another pronoun, she, that editors and numerous reliable sources tells us is increasingly viewed as sexist and offensive, why on earth would WP pick the option guaranteed to offend an increasing number of our readers, and especially our female readers and editors who we already know feel marginalized (see WP:Systemic bias). I'm strongly reminded arguments 5 or 10 years ago along the lines of "What's wrong with transsexualism? It's a perfectly fine word with a long history.", and arguments a generation or two ago that went "What's wrong with Colored and Negro? The NAACP and the UNCF used them, so it's just not sane that anyone could be offended, and if they are well they can just go stick it where the sun don't shine."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:07, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
    @SMcCandlish: Do we have set spellings for color vs colour? Do we have set policies on whether we should use BC/AD or BCE/CE? No we don't, don't we? Why should we make an exception for ships? Remember that in the UK/Australia, she is still in quite common use. We do not base our MOS on other style guides, either. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 18:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
    See MOS:ENGVAR, and MOS:ERA. These are completely unrelated concerns. We do in fact have a rather strict guideline to use color/colour (and other very consistent dialect differences) appropriately: don't (for example) impose American spelling on British topics, and don't editwar over the English variety in an article with no strong national ties. Similarly, don't change BC/AD to BCE/CE or vice versa on a whim, since both systems are equivalent and have very widespread use, and it's just pisses people off for no gain either way (with some exceptions that actually relate, in being potentially offensive, like using BC/AD dating in articles about non-Christian religions). If you want to make a more apt comparison, between encyclopedically neutral and appropriate and contemporary use, versus potentially offensive old-fashioned-isms, try this instead: Do we write articles about the Ozarks in actual Ozark bumpkin dialect? Do we change contemporary wording like "150 AD" or "150 CE" to obfuscatory blather like "anno Domini 150" or "In the year of Our Lord 150"? The obvious answer is hell no.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
    As an addendum, I've seen the sexism argument thrown around many times now. I'd like to hear your reasons why you have a problem with calling ships she, because I don't really have a problem with calling ships it nor she. I admit that maybe I am biased towards she, but my final vote is for neither. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 18:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
    Still not getting it. Whether I personally find it sexist or offensive is utterly irrelevant. The thing that matters is what you already said: "I've seen the sexism argument thrown around many times now". I.e., people find it sexist, and they are going to keep finding it sexist, and this means some (not exactly determinate, but obviously growing) percentage of our real-world readership are offended by it, and offending them buys us absolutely nothing. The article is not objectively better for using she, iit's just different, and pandering to a particular micro-audience (ship fans), and apt to piss off a much broader subset of our readers.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
    @SMcCandlish: I apologise, I meant to remove that above reply but forgot to. I'll strike it now. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 19:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
    My bad, I think. Looks like I edit-conflicted you and didn't notice, or the software didn't. And you just edit-conflicted me and nuked a bunch of my comments. Fixed. Maybe this is one "those database days" where MW flips out on us.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
    @SMcCandlish: MW didn't report any edit conflict for me either. Should I explain such to DIYeditor? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 19:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
    @TheDragonFire300: I 'magine that DIYeditor can read this, too. :-) Unless they're bugging you on your talk page, I think the issue has passed. I don't know why this happens, but am guessing it's when database and network latency (and maybe MW script processing latency) happen to coincide just so. When I'm editing frequently on a daily basis, I get unrecognized, unresolved edit conflicts (in which whatever I submitted just replaces the extant content despite a conflict, which goes unnoticed by the software) between one and three times per month. So, it's pretty rare but just common enough to be cause for concern. I think this is the first time I've ever seen it happen twice in a row to two different editors, and that suggests the problem has nothing to do with the user-agent side of things, only with the server side.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
    Re your "not ENGVAR" issue; it is an ENGVAR issue; remember that in the US "she" may be seen as sexist and disrespectful, but not in the UK/Australia (at least, not that I've seen). Many could argue that it's sexist; many can argue it's not. It's been discussed before, and I personally would prefer neither to be the predominant, but to make our decision on a case by case, country by country basis. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 18:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
    Just WP:OR and supposition. We have absolutely zero reliably sourced information suggesting there's a nationalistic split on this question. And your supposition is easy to disprove with a few seconds at Google Advanced Search: [60], [61]. Anyway, if you started with "I am biased towards she" and are now at "I personally would prefer neither to be the predominant", that's at least some progress. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
    For the record I never supported either of them for the purposes of forcing one for all WP; read my vote above. I take my reading from the #Why some people consider it sexist section below; from reading it I see that most sources using she are British English, so articles about UK ships should be allowed the choice between she and it. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 19:42, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
    Selection bias and a tiny sample size. The links I gave just above show plenty of UK and Au. criticism of she as sexist or insensitive. And US WP:MILHIST people have already cited American works using she. ENGVAR doesn't apply to faint and questionable trends or leanings, only to well-documented features of a dialect, like the colo[u]r distinction, and whilst/while, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
    Okay. I stand by my point; we do not need a policy mandating either pronoun for ships. Thanks, SMcCandlish. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 19:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
    I agree. It's why I support removing the apparently three places that MILTHIST and SHIPS project people have injected WP:CREEP saying to use she for ships. Odd exceptionalism like that will just die off on its own if MoS stops explicitly endorsing it, since the usage off-site is already uncommon and is rapidly declining. That said, if we remove the "ships are special" crap but this leads to a year of knock-down-drag-out "style wars" at various articles, then we'd probably need to add a rule to not use she, just to forestall any more such conflict. Absent that problem, we don't need a specific rule at all. See also the axiom and corollary here (be patient; it takes a while to load that large page and then jump to that section link).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:45, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
SMcCandlish, it's so nice to have you back. For the convenience of all there's WP:MOSBLOAT. EEng 18:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • That said, if we remove the "ships are special" crap but this leads to a year of knock-down-drag-out "style wars" at various articles, then we'd probably need to add a rule to not use she, just to forestall any more such conflict. First of all, ships are special. You may call it "crap", but it is an integral part of the language, trendiness notwithstanding. Secondly this RfC is a "knock-down-drag-out style war". Are you trying to "forestall" conflict by sustaining conflict? Bus stop (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
    First of all, ships are special – Chirst, this is getting to a whole new level beyond ridiculous. Cars are things, screwdrivers are things, ships are things. George III is off the throne. The Empire is over. Subscriber trunk dialing. The pound is decimal now. The heir apparent has a brown daughter-in-law. It's the 21st century. Come join us. EEng 18:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
    Yeah, the entire point of this RfC is that it can and already has been conclusively proven that ships being called she is not "an integral part of the language". It's entirely optional and rapidly declining, largely because women tend to find it offensive. Whether any (probably male) editor on Wikipedia disagrees with why women (and male sexual egalitarians) find it offensive is basically irrelevant, since it can and has been reliably sourced that this negative view of "ship she" is common. Since it adds nothing communicative between WP editors/content and WP readers to use she for ships, and it's guaranteed to piss off a substantial number of readers, we have zero incentive to continue doing it. That's what this RfC is about, and if this logic cannot be refuted (good luck with that), there's only one way this RfC should conclude. EEng: Nice to be back, mostly. During my break, my ulcer receded, some of my hair grew back, and the heart attacks stopped. ;-) Back to Bus_stop: My point in bringing up MOSBLOAT is that MoS should not include line-items that are not necessary to prevent recurrent strife. An RfC is not recurrent strife (is not a "style war"). MoS pages having at least three spots where it says to use she for ships, (despite us not having a consensus record in favor of such line items) is self-evidently controversial – just read this RfC. Ergo they should be removed. Some here would like to see an opposite line-item inserted (to use it), while some of us say just leave it out entirely. If we leave it out entirely, and people editwar for months over this she/it [pun intended] then I would support adding an anti-she provision. We don't need one until we have evidence that people are going to fight a lot about it in the future despite this RfC already indicating that she does not enjoy much support outside of two wikiprojects.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
    an anti-she provision – Better hope no one takes that out of context. EEng 18:45, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
    Right! According to some of those with reading-comprehension problems, I'm already a sexist and a transphobe (maybe I also molest goats and eat babies; I haven't checked lately).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
"women tend to find it offensive" I actually haven't seen the source for that. The often-repeated argument is that this is "sexist". But what is the origin of that? I would concede that it would be sexist if "women tend to find it offensive". And if women don't tend to find it offensive then I don't think I would say it is "sexist" and nor should Wikipedia be following lemming-like after fashion trends as may be identified in style guides associated with other publications. They may wish to curry favor with an audience that follows specious trends. But we should act independently and not proscribe language that is part and parcel of ordinary English usage. Bus stop (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree that something can only be sexist if women disproportionately label it as sexist. This presumes a.) that the usage in question is more offensive to women than to men, when something like "only women can be nurses" should be offensive to both men and women, and b.) that women are better at spotting sexism than men, which in a society that's trying desperately not to be sexist, shouldn't be true. So far I count at least half a dozen editors who have commented that they personally find this usage sexist, and I take that as reasonable evidence that some portion of the general population considers it so, because I can't think of a good reason for them to misrepresent their views. Some people I've spoken to in real life about this debate, who are great defenders of gender equality and freedom and whose opinions I respect, have also opined that they do not think this usage is sexist, though they do think it is old-fashioned. I don't think anyone is claiming that everyone find this to be sexist, as there are also plenty of editors who have said in this discussion that they personally don't. If you want to see some women explicitly calling this usage sexist, you can read a comment from Susan Deal who wrote to the Guardian or listen to a 15-minute explanation from Ella Tennant, an English Language Teaching Fellow at Keele University on Radio New Zealand.[62] -- Beland (talk) 03:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I too asked for sources for this "negative view of ship she is common" view. We often say "follow the sources" but those sources are still missing.  Stepho  talk  23:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
    When Lloyd's List announced that they were moving to "it", the reason they gave was that they were coming into line with most other reputable international business titles. The Lloyd's editor further went on to say the shipping industry does need to move forward if it is not to risk becoming a backwater of international business. I decided that it was time to catch up with the rest of the world, and most other news organisations refer to ships as neuter. Clearly this was not something they felt was a pioneering decision: on the contrary, they felt as though they were being left behind as one of the few organizations still referring to ships as "she" (as I believe we have demonstrated by the style guide discussion below).
    I also find it interesting that the quoted spokesman for the Royal Navy (who was defending their choice to retain "she") said the following: If I remember my history, they are female because originally the ship was the only woman allowed at sea and was treated with deference and respect - and because they are expensive. If the best reason that they can come up with is as anachronistic as the only woman allowed at sea, if I'm being honest I would have to say that the time for "she" has long since passed. CThomas3 (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
    If the best reason that they can come up with is as anachronistic as "the only woman allowed at sea" – What are you talking about? They also gave "because they are expensive" as a reason. EEng 02:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Also at that link I find: "A spokesman for the Royal Navy said it would continue to refer to ships as female ... The British Marine Industries Federation also said it had no plans to change ... Our owners have always referred to them as 'she' and will continue to do so because, to many, they are part of the family," a spokesman said." Bus stop (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
The British Marine Industries Federation also said it had no plans to change – Yes, but that was 2002; since then, Maritime Museum vows to remove all signs referring to ships as 'she' [63]. Better luck next time. EEng 02:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
And for those who own and care for a boat, I say by all means, continue to call it whatever you like. But, just as we would say to someone writing about a family member or close friend, keep the nicknames and romanticism out of your writing and stick to the facts. CThomas3 (talk) 02:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Are you dismissing this as "nicknames and romanticism"? In it I find "She never reached her destination: in June that year she was sunk by a squadron of British ships. For more than three centuries her final resting place remained a mystery. But on December 4th 2015 Juan Manuel Santos, Colombia’s president, announced that a team of archaeologists had found the wreck 30 miles off the Colombian coast. He promised to recover the ship and its contents, worth as much as $17bn, and build a museum in Cartagena to house them." Bus stop (talk) 03:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
No, I'm dismissing the reasoning given by the British Marine Industries Federation, if they are doing so simply because the ships are "part of the family." They aren't "part of the family" for the general audience, so that guidance shouldn't apply to a general audience publication such as ours. But the fact that the pronoun changes mid-article does kind of undermine your point in my opinion; the Economist appears to be romanticizing the image ship of the courageously facing a British squadron, but unceremoniously referring to "it" and "its" contents on the ocean floor. CThomas3 (talk) 03:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
"But the fact that the pronoun changes mid-article does kind of undermine your point in my opinion". "She", "her", "hers", "it", "its" are all acceptable pronouns for use with ships. If anything, the usage provided by The Economist "undermines" our present guidance which says Ships may be referred to using either feminine forms ("she", "her", "hers") or neuter forms ("it", "its"). Either usage is acceptable, but each article should be internally consistent and employ one or the other exclusively. There is no justification that I can think of for the "internal consistency" requirement our guidance is presently calling for. Why should we not mix feminine and neuter pronouns in relation to ships, in the same article? Bus stop (talk) 03:37, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm confused...I was under the impression that you considered "it" for ships political correctness run amok, crude speech and coarse language. You've also advocated that the policy is fine as it is. Now you are saying that there is no justification that I can think of for "internal consistency." For someone who has been vociferously advocating for good speech, I'm honestly baffled as to what your point of view actually is, except for the fact that you seem to be insistent that "she" for ships remain in the MOS. CThomas3 (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Cthomas3—retaining current language is fine with me. But if you are going to say "the fact that the pronoun changes mid-article does kind of undermine your point in my opinion", I have to fine-tune my stance on current language. I don't think a requirement for "internal consistency" makes sense, and let me point out that in your response you haven't said why it does make sense. As for your other points, there is little reason to rehash them, but yes, I perceive this as fallout from political correctness, and yes, I think good speech, at least in this instance, entails availing ourselves of all the pronouns available to us. My reasons for wanting editorial latitude are almost irrelevant, but for one thing, varying the terminology relieves monotony. The Economist is in my opinion an erudite publication. Aside from fact-checking I think they engage in a search for the best and most succinct way to express themselves. The Guardian on the other hand is not only left-leaning, making them more susceptible to political correctness pressures, but they actually have a reputation for garbled speech. Frequent typographical errors in the paper led Private Eye magazine to dub it the "Grauniad" in the 1960s, a nickname still used today. Bus stop (talk) 04:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Given that half our readers are either left-leaning or right-leaning, I wouldn't dismiss offense to a usage alternative taken by readers on either side just because people on the other side generally aren't bothered by either alternative. Also, I wouldn't consider the Associated Press, Reuters, Chicago Manual of Style, or US Coast Guard to be left-leaning. -- Beland (talk) 06:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I wonder if Beland can provide a particularly egregious example of the "offense" to which they refer. Must we only discuss this in the abstract? Let us examine and discuss an actual instance found to be offensive. Bus stop (talk) 13:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't think anyone would consider "she" for ships egregiously offensive, and many people simply find it old-fashioned or grammatically dubious without being offensive. Sticking with pronouns, I can think of two examples from different ends of the political spectrum, if we're being reductionist. One is the generic he, which liberals tend to find sexist and semantically incorrect (referring to women by the wrong gender) and conservatives tend to find to be a normal part of traditional grammar with a gender-neutral meaning. The other is the singular they, which conservatives tend to find ungrammatical (referring to a single person with the wrong number) and possibly political correctness gone amok, and liberals tend to find to be a normal part of traditional grammar with a number-neutral meaning. Wikipedia doesn't use either of those because there are alternatives to which hardly anyone objects. -- Beland (talk) 14:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps I misspoke by requesting an egregiously offensive example. Let me revise that. Just provide the best example to prove your point. Let us discuss something in its actual manifestation rather than in the abstract. Bus stop (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, I gave a concrete illustrative pair that's probably most relevant to the she/it question for ships. Was there some particular aspect you were skeptical about? The point you make about using alternatives to relieve monotony is certainly valid, but we can and do rotate "it", "the ship", "the vessel", "USS Lincoln", etc. to do that. As for the argument about political correctness, if you're using that as a synonym for inclusive language, it seems that sometimes that movement does run amok because people find a proposed change unreasonable or unjustified, but sometimes it goes mainstream, like with gender-neutral terms for occupations. For example, some people find "women" offensive because it implies women are derivative of men, and propose alternatives like womyn. Sorting out "run amok" from "accepted alternative" from "preferred alternative" is a matter of degree, which can be relatively objectively established by researching usage patterns. As far as I know, there are no widely used English style guides and no wide-circulation publications - whether left-leaning or not - that use "womyn", so I'd agree that's clearly not appropriate for the encyclopedia. -- Beland (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Provide any example. You have initiated a section below called "Why some people consider it sexist". In that section as well as elsewhere you go on at length about why this is sexist without providing any examples. Therefore you are discussing this in the abstract. Would it harm your case to actually look at examples of the so-called "offense" that you are referencing? Bus stop (talk) 18:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I gave the examples of the generic he, singular they, and "womyn". Maybe I'm not understanding what you're looking for when you ask for "examples of the so-called offense"? Are you looking for specific articles that use "she" for ships, specific people who find that usage offensive, specific reasons why a specific person finds it offensive, or something else? -- Beland (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Beland—I don't know if we are having a communication problem but I am asking you to link to or quote an instance in which you feel "she" or "her" in relation to ships causes harm. Bus stop (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
OK, so USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) says in part: "USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) is the fifth Nimitz-class aircraft carrier in the United States Navy. She is the second Navy ship to have been named after the former President Abraham Lincoln." and continues to use "she" and "her" throughout the intro. I'm going to keep my personal opinion out of it, but Ella Tennant argues that all such instances are perceived by some women, including herself and her sailing captain friend, to be patronizing. If you consider a reader being distracted from the facts of the article by finding the article's tone to be patronizing to be "harm", there's that, and presumably this may also discourage some women from entering maritime industries or navies, which could be considered a harmful effect. Tennant also argues that all such instances contribute to stereotypes of women as mothers and nurturing, which she says helps exclude them from other social roles. If true, that could certainly harm someone's chances for a job or stunt someone's happiness if they choose a career or effect a personal based on gender stereotypes rather than their own individual preferences. I don't think anyone is arguing changing this one paragraph has a high probability of affecting any particular person's life, but constantly encountering this usage with respect to ships could be argued to have a cumulative or collective effect. At least one gender-neutrality activist quoted in one article was dismissive of this question, saying other types of sexist and transphobic language are having a much greater impact on people's lives. And plenty of people, including people whose opinions I respect, do not find this usage to be sexist or harmful beyond possibly confusing or annoying the reader with an old-fashioned-sounding phrasing. -- Beland (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I've miscommunicated again. I am not asking for an example from Wikipedia. Can you link to a reliable source that you feel uses "she" or "her" in relation to ships in a way that you deem harmful, or offensive, or sexist? Bus stop (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
This BBC article has already been cited in this discussion, among many others. Though apparently it is against the current BBC style manual, it says things like "HMS Prince of Wales has been floated and moved to her fitting-out berth at Rosyth docks". Certainly this is included in the scope of the argument concerning sexism made by Ella Tennant and others. I'm neither endorsing nor criticizing that argument. -- Beland (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Beland—there is nothing remotely sexist in that BBC source. Not even close. A ship is being construed as being of the female gender in that BBC source. How is that sexist? In fact the pronouns "she" and "her" do not even refer exclusively to human females. Insects have genders, not to mention dogs, cats, and alligators. The BBC source that you provide has nothing to do with women. It only speaks about ships. No one thinks that a woman is being "floated". Both of the sentences in that BBC article that use "she" and "her" also include the word "floated". Is any reader going to think this is about a woman or girl being "floated"? Bus stop (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Sure, it sounds like you and Ella Tennant just disagree on whether or not referring to ships as "she" is in general sexist. I respect both opinions. -- Beland (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Ella Tennant only discusses the topic in the abstract. Ella Tennant does not discuss this topic with reference to any actual examples. Do you see the BBC source as being sexist? If so, why? I just explained to you why I do not see the BBC source as being sexist, but if you disagree you can tell us why the BBC source is sexist. Bus stop (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
She criticized the practice categorically. I'm not sure what difference it makes if it's in BBC article A or Wikipedia article B or Economist article C, the reasons would be the same. Personally, I'm staying neutral on that question. -- Beland (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Criticizing something categorically is not good enough for our purposes. We don't have to get on the bandwagon of those who criticize this categorically. We can think for ourselves. We are not restricted to discussing this in the abstract. Ella Tennant only discusses this in the abstract. We can look at concrete examples. The BBC source you provided is a concrete example. In your own words—why is it sexist? I tried to explain why it is not sexist. I'm not content to jump aboard a bandwagon. If the BBC source is sexist, please explain how you see it as being sexist. Bus stop (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't understand what the dispute is. Do you not believe that Ella Tennant would find this example to be sexist? Do you not believe that the editors who responded to the survey by saying using "she" for ships is sexist, would find this example of using "she" for ships to be sexist? I'm not trying to convince you that this is sexist; it seems you've considered the arguments in favor of that position and simply don't agree with them. -- Beland (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
You provided the BBC source—not me. I am saying it is not even remotely sexist. It references ships being "floated". What does that have to do with women? Are women and girls commonly "floated"? The source uses "she" and "her" to refer to those ships. Insects come in female varieties too. Why are you construing "she" and "her" as references to women? Bus stop (talk) 23:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I have no new arguments to add beyond those that have already been made. I accept your conclusion that this usage is not sexist. If you find it unreasonable that any rational person could possibly come to a different conclusion, then you should not support this proposal on the basis that this usage is sexist. I did not propose that as a reason for supporting it, as there are plenty of others. -- Beland (talk) 23:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Spectrum's (i.e. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546)'s !vote

Discussion moved from #Survey section 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose, or better put, oppose for now. There are walls of text to go through so I apologize if there was an arguemnt I didn't consider, feel welcome to add information I may have missed below if you think it will make me reconsider. The MoS has long been tolerant of some variations in usage. We allow differrent styles for citations, dates, times, eras, spelling etc. That is to say, one particular style has never been mandated just because it is the majority or plurality style so long as others with a significant minority usage exist. It's difficult to put an exact number an usage percentage in recently published works, not least of which because as others have made apparent, some organizations fail to follow their own style guides and are often internally inconsistent in the course of a single article. If this were a question of use of a single word with few definitions, it would be easy to find prevalence in recently published written works using online tools, alas none of the tools I found could narrowly answer the question of how often "she" was used in the context of a pronoun for ships. Thus my conclusion that this has substantial minority usage, at least regionally, is largely based on the less than satisfactory evidence gathered here. I do strongly believe, given current trends, this usage will eventually fall by the wayside, but I don't believe we are there just yet.
Some other points remain to be addressed.
  1. It has been argued that whatever its prevalence usage of "she" is currently restricted to nautical or specialty sources and so should be ended on that ground alone. I'm not convinced that such a restriction in usage is an accurate characterization based on existing evidence. However, even if we assume so for the sake of arguement I don't believe it entails the outcome of eliminating it. Many of our mathematical, scientific, and technical articles are filled with terminology specific to their field, and I see no obvious reason why nautical articles should differ. Indeed in some cases the MOS allows specialty uses for word that are otherwise archaic (e.g. "quire may be used instead of choir in architectural contexts"). Or in a related context, the extensive use of nautical miles as the primary unit in nautical articles, in fact they don't even have to be converted.
  2. There has been suggestion that those arguements from people from nautical and related WikiProjects and backgrounds should be ignored. While I have no doubt that those who work or have worked on the water are more frequently exposed to this usage, and hence more likely to defend it, I don't believe their arguements should be discounted solely due to their background.
  3. While there has been some back and forth on ENGVAR, this has not been addressed in nearly the detail I would like. There is some discussion of American, Australian, and British usage, and where they might differ, and no discussion of virtually any of the other varieties of english. Do the Indian, Phillipine, South African, Liberian ENGVARs, or any one of a dozen others have a strong usage pattern either way? Who knows because no one has bothered to bring it up. This does cut both directions, if evidence is brought forth that shows either usage is vanishingly small in some ENGVAR, I support insofar as it applies to articles written in that variety (As a fun little side-note TIL that many varieties of english assign gender to inanimate nouns in a fairly systematic manner, and now I have new book to check out at the libarary).
  4. Concern was expressed over readers finding 'she' to be a surprising usage. I've given this little weight because to a sufficiently ignorant (in the non-pejorative sense) reader virtually anything may be surprising and our choice of vocabulary and sentence structure would be highly restricted. If the concern is for people with low familiarity with english, there's another wiki for that.
  5. Finally, some commentators have expressed that the usage of "she" is or could be considered to be sexist. I'm sympathetic to those concerns. While the origins of the usage going back at least to the 14th century are obscure and may or may not be so, it certainly has been used in a sexist manner by the, still, predominantly male members of the maritime profession, and also to be fair in non-sexist ways. That said, Wikipedia does WP:NOT exist to WP:RGW, and I'm unwilling to make an exception to that long-standing policy in this case.
Update:This is a crude tool but ngrams gives approximately a 2:1 ratio overall [64] as of 2008, which is probably a bit higher now. That convinces me that this is a significant minority usage. If anyone has evidence that in any national variety of English the ratio is 20:1 or greater, I support insofar as it applies to that variety. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment There's a difference between a terminology specific to their field, and just an inclination to a specific pronoun because you have a personal affection for it. To prove its not just a personal affectionate way, reliable, non-bias sources, should use "she" as their standard. We have to prove it's a technical term, not an affectionate one.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 20:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
@Blue Pumpkin Pie:I agree that there's a differrence, but I don't think its highly relavent. The question is one of usage. A usage should not be included/excluded just because it is sometimes technical, nor should it be included/excluded just because it is sometimes affectionate. The relavant question should be "is this a significant minority usage?" I don't know exactly where the cut-off line is in % terms, or rather to quote a SCOTUS Justice "I'll know it when I see it." I add one major caveat that I believe important. In general differrent language registers are used in differrent situations, roughly there are 5 categories.
  1. Ritual (A state of the union address)
  2. Formal (A job interview)
  3. Collegial (A converstaion with a store clerk)
  4. Familiar (A chat between friends)
  5. Intimate (A couple speaking privately at home over dinner)
for Wikipedia purposes we primarily concern oursleves only with the first 3, and especially the second, and ignore the last two. To the extent that any usage occurs in only those registers, affectionate or otherwise it can be ignored. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
To your points (a) and (c), the evidence listed in the #List of style guides section is what convinces me that this isn't an ENGVAR issue, and it's not in standard use, and hasn't been for 20 years. The arguments in the #Commentary on "follow the sources" section is what convinces me that we shouldn't follow older or specialized sources that use "she". I know there's a lot of text at this RfC, so wanted to highlight those two sections in case in might affect your thinking. My bottom line is: we should follow what all these style guides are doing today. – Levivich 20:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
@Levivich: The problem is that #List of style guides covers only a narrow range and so does not give a complete enough sample for proper analysis. In paticular as I mentioned in (c) we do not have a single style guide from the vast majority of english speaking nations. Further even those listed are largely newspaper style guides I would like at least some numbers regarding usage in other published literaure as well. The fact that multiple style guides in the very short existing list prefer "she" is enough to give me pause. To your 2nd point on #Commentary on "follow the sources" I largely agree, with some caveats as you can see in my commentary there, that the relavent usage is only from publications in the last 25 years. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2019
Update, usage ratio is probably a bit greater than 2:1 though I still wish I had better numbers [65]. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
in order for me to support "she", i need to see the opposers prove that "She" is used as a technical irreplaceable terminology necessary for understanding the topic in question. It is very clear and obvious that "she" is not within standard use for ships in modern day as shown below. There is no evidence that the term to call ships has a technical reason. There is no evidence that once we remove female pronouns to ships that it will negatively impact articles. We have proven the complete opposite. We cannot compare it to mathematics or science. But if we are, there are sometimes multiple terms for one topic, but it's never involved adding pronouns. I know i shouldn't share my personal experience in this, but when i was a child, i was never taught to give ships any exception on how to identify them. And it's never been an issue for over 20 years. And if someone can come in and mention where the education system for english teaches kids that Ships need to be referred to as she because that is what they believe is the standard, then that would be beneficial in this discussion.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 22:45, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
@Blue Pumpkin Pie:I disagree that something need be an irreplacable technical term to retain it as an alternative usage variation. Nor do I believe a variation must be a clear benefit or that proof must be provided that the absence will negatively impact articles. We do not require such proof to retain other variances in usage, see again the variance for citations, dates, times, eras, spelling etc nor should that be the standard in this case. As previously stated "Is this a singnificant minority usage?" is the primary question I've considered, allowing that it may vary between different english speaking nations and so the answers may need to be tailored regionally as the evidence dictates. I do appreciate your ernest personnal anecdote, and I wish I had the answer to which usage is taught in primary schools in each of the various english speaking nations around the world, unfortunately I do not and even if all the commentators here were to give their own experience we would still have a biased sample, or put another way "the plural of anecdote is not evidence." In sum, it appears we are operating from differrent presuppositional bases as to under which circumstances minority usage variations are allowed, if so I respect that. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 23:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
MOS:COMMONALITY is a specific place in the MOS that promotes using one term where one term will do. One might reasonably promote that citation and dates and times and eras "just need a decision and then to stick to it", but spelling (and terminology) are not such a place. If you have a valid alternative that is correct in formal writing, and it is at least as correct as the phrase you are using now, then you should use the valid alternative. (You cannot imagine how much I struggle to use "alternative" these days in lieu of "alternate", as noted at MOS:COMMONALITY.) --Izno (talk) 00:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
@Izno:Just to be clear, and correct me if I'm wrong, you believe that variation is fine with the exception of spelling and terminolgy. The problem is that has never been policy, we have long accepted that either "color" or "colour" is acceptable so spelling variation is acceptable, likewise with "boot" or "trunk" for terminology. There may be a narrower arguement in there that while variation is usually acceptable that is not the case when one term is widely understood throughout the english speaking world. There are multiple problems with this however. First evidence is lacking that would establish such a commonality, as I've expressed previously I've seen discussion of only three national varieties of english out of the two dozen or so that need to be addressed, Second it is not clear that MOS:COMMONALITY has usually been interpreted the way you are interpreting it, by way of example, it's not hard to find "gaol(ed)" in searches where it is neither a quote nor proper name, despite the fact that jail(ed) is the term common to all varieties because there is recognition that usage of non-common terms within specific ENGVARS is permissible where TIES exist (and would everyone please refrain from going on bot like purge of gaoled to make a point, thanks in advance). Finally MOS:COMMONALITY states the most commonly used current variant should usually be preferred, except where the less common spelling has a specific usage in a specialized context (emphasis mine) given that usage of "she" is widespread in the nautical context, contrary to your assertion, MOS:COMMONALITY could just as easily be read to require "she," now that is not how I read it, but it is a reasonable interpretation. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
The problem with google books is that it doesn't take account for how common it is for-maritime sources to use she vs the ones that don't, it doesn't even separate fiction from research/history reference.
Its important we verify if officially known as a professional term, and not just a subjective term that professionals choose to use. I'm aware that sounds confusing, but there is a difference. If we are ignoring that aspect in this discussion, we might as well not even attempt to have a neutral discussion and just admit we have personal bias inclinations to using she.
We also have to remember that Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia. She and it are not equal, not just in common usage, but in tone. Using color or colour is a regional difference. "She" over "It" can imply personal inclinations to these ships. Calling a ship she in Wikipedia may suggest that Wikipedia has a personal inclination for them. Using "she" can also subconsciously allow editors to add a more personalized spin to these articles without realizing it and trying to sound like the History channel. And no, history channel and Wikipedia are two separate things. While Wikipedia just states the facts, and adds no personal inclinations, the sources wikipedia uses doesn't have those restrictions. So when you quote the most commonly used current variant should usually be preferred, except where the less common spelling has a specific usage in a specialized context it doesn't apply to she and it, because the two terms are not equal in what they express.
I personally find this a problem because it's not just ships that get affected, aircrafts can be affected as well. For example: There is also Memphis Belle (aircraft) uses "She" but Lucky Lady II uses "it". It's these ambiguous exception for ships that creates more inconsistency.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 17:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
@Blue Pumpkin Pie: In response to your first point, I agree google ngrams is a crude tool, I would much prefer to have a several better ones, and a properly curated data set. However, even given the margin of error it is clear that this is a significant minority use with no prejudice to a different outcome for certain specific national varieties where the numbers tell us this usage variation is no longer significant outside of informal spoken language.
Its important we verify if officially known as a professional term, and not just a subjective term that professionals choose to use. I disagree with the premise here that a substantial minority usage must be an official professional one for it to be sanctioned. Hence, I don't believe it is necessary for us to investigate it.
We also have to remember that Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia. She and it are not equal, not just in common usage, but in tone. Tone is subjective and culturally dependent, from a certain point of view nothing we do here is truly neutral, we try to do the best we can, one way of trying to be neutral is by allowing minority usages again for example with citations, dates, times, eras, spelling etc, and this allowance, since undoubtedly many of those who volunteer to write our nautical articles are more comfortable with this usage, could just as easily be seen as a way of upholding neutrality. Calling a ship she in Wikipedia may suggest that Wikipedia has a personal inclination for them perhaps to some viewers, but again if we had to remove all prose that any person might find improper, and there are more than 7.5 Billion people to take into account, we wouldn't be able to have any content at all. Using "she" can also subconsciously allow editors to add a more personalized spin to these articles without realizing it and trying to sound like the History channel. Perhaps, but again this same argument can be applied to virtually any of our usage allowances; does compelling the national variety where there are TIES subconsciously cause our editors to promote Jingoism? In any case avoiding some personnal touch is virtually impossible regardless of the size of the Procrustean bed we force our contributors into, we already have procedures to mitigate this issue through collaboration and normal editing practice. history channel and Wikipedia are two separate things agree wholeheartedly. it doesn't apply to she and it, because the two terms are not equal in what they express. To some people the choice of usage is invisible and which choice the author made is not something that even crosses their minds until their attention is brought to the matter, to others one or the other is unusual and may interrupt the flow, but again to a sufficiently ignorant (in the non-pejorative sense) reader, virtually any of the above variations risks causing this issue and breaking the flow. The problem is ineluctable, we try to balance many competing concerns as best we can.
I personally find this a problem because it's not just ships that get affected, aircrafts can be affected as well. I was not aware this usage had been applied to aircraft, but I'm not surprised. If your concern is that this usage will expand from here to other areas, and I believe that is highly unlikely, then that could be addressed by clarifying in which contexts the usage is allowed without resorting to across the board prohibition. It's these ambiguous exception for ships that creates more inconsistency. As I've previously expressed we have long tolerated some variation in usage, there's no need for absolute consistency to become a hobgoblin that haunts our every sentence.
Thanks for your engagement, I'm afraid I won't be able to continue this conversation more than a day or two once I back on the road, and while I once thought I'd sworn off Wikipedia forever I now make an exception but only for one very specific location. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, I'd argue that usage of "gaol" in Wikipedia is a mistake, both because of the commonality issue even the article prison says this usage is "dated", so it probably isn't even appropriate for articles with UK and Commonwealth ties. (Which explains why I've been severely confused by this word in the past; it's not very easy to sound out!) This is not all that surprising to me; there are at least tens of thousands of spelling mistakes in Wikipedia, and tens of thousands of places someone has forgotten to put a space after a common or before a bracket. -- Beland (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
@Beland: You have a point, the assumption in the foregoing was that contributors had in general familiarized themselves with the policy, and that the typical interpretation made by its readers nonetheless made an allowance for the variance, however it is equally possible that such a usage is purely the well-meaning result of ignorance of the policy, it's hard to say which is true, and now that you mention it I suspect it is some combination of both, thanks for the input. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
In response to your first point, I agree google ngrams is a crude tool, I would much prefer to have a several better ones, and a properly curated data set. However, even given the margin of error it is clear that this is a significant minority use with no prejudice to a different outcome for certain specific national varieties where the numbers tell us this usage variation is no longer significant outside of informal spoken language.
If you're referring to "it" being a significant minority i agree, but i dont see why we should keep "she" anyways.
I disagree with the premise here that a substantial minority usage must be an official professional one for it to be sanctioned. Hence, I don't believe it is necessary for us to investigate it.
I think its worth it, and it has been investigated below
Tone is subjective and culturally dependent, from a certain point of view nothing we do here is truly neutral, we try to do the best we can, one way of trying to be neutral is by allowing minority usages again for example with citations, dates, times, eras, spelling etc, and this allowance, since undoubtedly many of those who volunteer to write our nautical articles are more comfortable with this usage, could just as easily be seen as a way of upholding neutrality.
Tones can be culturally dependent, that doesn't mean all tones are subjective. And although nothing truly is 100% neutral, that is no excuse to not attempt neutrality. To me those statements are saying "you're right, but in a nihilistic grand scheme of things, you're wrong. Therefore none of the context you provide matters". Not all Citations can look the same, but we do have a standard on wikipedia for them. Same for Dates, times, and Eras, and regional spelling. You're not going to see a sentence in Wikipedia as "Favourite color" or "Favorite colour" for example. regardless if you personally think we can never achieve true neutrality, that is Wikipedia's goal. So if you see something that isn't 100% neutral, it's best to attempt to fix it. Especially for 2:1 differences from a crude tool, i don't see it neutral for nautical editors to choosing what they feel comfortable. I've seen a situation where an editor constantly changed "favor" for "favour" in an article even though the entire article was written in american english.
Perhaps, but again this same argument can be applied to virtually any of our usage allowances; does compelling the national variety where there are TIES subconsciously cause our editors to promote Jingoism?
If we start addressing nations as "she", then yes, It could cause our editors to promote Jingoism. We have to remember that these articles are not just for maritime readers, the maritime editors should take that into account. Because it is confusing. Why does one ship have favoritism and the other doesn't? It's not equal to color/colour. In european based topics, british english may be more inclined. There's a proper explanation for it. But since there is no standard for Wikipedia, it can (and has) confused our readers.
I was not aware this usage had been applied to aircraft, but I'm not surprised. If your concern is that this usage will expand from here to other areas, and I believe that is highly unlikely, then that could be addressed by clarifying in which contexts the usage is allowed without resorting to across the board prohibition.
I'm saying it already has. And i believe we need to be as neutral as possible. Even when we don't like it.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 19:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
@Blue Pumpkin Pie:If you're referring to "it" being a significant minority i agree, but i dont see why we should keep "she" anyways. Just to be clear the evidence suggests that in this context "it" is the majority usage (about 2 out of every 3 cases in written works as of 2008), and "she" is a significant minority usage (about 1 out of every 3 cases in written works as of 2008).
Tones can be culturally dependent, that doesn't mean all tones are subjective. And although nothing truly is 100% neutral, that is no excuse to not attempt neutrality. To me those statements are saying "you're right, but in a nihilistic grand scheme of things, you're wrong. Therefore none of the context you provide matters". Not at all, what I'm saying is that your personal subjective interpretation of tone, is not going to be the same as everyone else's. In fact, I was attempting, apparently rather poorly, to explain that making an allowance for significant minority usages has usually been seen as a way in which we can make the encyclopedia more neutral than we would by excluding them. As a practical matter once standards reach a certain tipping we have to follow them regardless of some outlying preferences and understanding that we won't be able to make everyone happy. While perfect neutrality is an ideal, never truly achievable, we're always trying to more closely approach it.
I've seen a situation where an editor constantly changed "favor" for "favour" in an article even though the entire article was written in american english. Yes but this cuts both ways, you should not demand that others follow the usage you are most comfortable with, nor should they demand that you follow theirs. The best way of keeping the peace and maintaining the environment of WikiLove that we've found so far, has been to allow the initial writer of an article to set the standard so long as it is consistent throughout the article, and requesting that everyone else abide by it, it's imperfect, but we try our best.
If we start addressing nations as "she", then yes, It could cause our editors to promote Jingoism. I see only speculation, and no particular evidence that usage of the national variety is any more or less likely than the usage of "she" to cause our editors to promote jingoism, would you care to offer any?
We have to remember that these articles are not just for maritime readers, the maritime editors should take that into account. Because it is confusing. Why does one ship have favoritism and the other doesn't? It's not equal to color/colour. In european based topics, british english may be more inclined. There's a proper explanation for it. But since there is no standard for Wikipedia, it can (and has) confused our readers. You suggest that having both "colour" and "color" is not a problem because if an ignorant reader inquires at the help desk as to why Wikipedia has this "misspelling" we can provide a proper explanation for it. The problem with this line of reasoning is that we can do likewise in explanaing why both "she" and "it" are present, it may be a slightly more complex answer, but I trust our help desk volunteers are more than up to the task.
I'm saying it already has I noted that, and also noted there are more narrowly tailored ways to address it equally well.
And i believe we need to be as neutral as possible. Even when we don't like it agree wholeheartedly, the appropriate question to ask is "how do we best achieve neutrality?" In many cases this is an issue upon which reasonable minds may differ. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)


Just to be clear the evidence suggests that in this context "it" is the majority usage (about 2 out of every 3 cases in written works as of 2008), and "she" is a significant minority usage (about 1 out of every 3 cases in written works as of 2008).
I personally think that list is even greater for not maritime sources. From a 10:1,but that's just a theory. But yes, what you provided to me is evidence to use "it" exclusively.
Not at all, what I'm saying is that your personal subjective interpretation of tone, is not going to be the same as everyone else's. In fact, I was attempting, apparently rather poorly, to explain that making an allowance for significant minority usages has usually been seen as a way in which we can make the encyclopedia more neutral than we would by excluding them. As a practical matter once standards reach a certain tipping we have to follow them regardless of some outlying preferences and understanding that we won't be able to make everyone happy. While perfect neutrality is an ideal, never truly achievable, we're always trying to more closely approach it.
But i don't want to contemplate whether true neutrality can be achieved or not. If wikipedia's goal is to be as neutral as it possibly can, then i'll still prefer to have that discussion.
Yes but this cuts both ways, you should not demand that others follow the usage you are most comfortable with, nor should they demand that you follow theirs. The best way of keeping the peace and maintaining the environment of WikiLove that we've found so far, has been to allow the initial writer of an article to set the standard so long as it is consistent throughout the article, and requesting that everyone else abide by it, it's imperfect, but we try our best.
i see it as favoritism and WP:OWN and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. not Wikilove or peace maintaining. It will be impact western maritime editors, but i dont think its anything they can't adjust to. Especially for the sake of Wikipedia's goals and the readers.
I see only speculation, and no particular evidence that usage of the national variety is any more or less likely than the usage of "she" to cause our editors to promote jingoism, would you care to offer any?
There is none, because there is no article that refers to nations as she. But lets look at sources that use "she" exclusively for their nations and see if they dont add a single hint of patriotism or even personal familiarity.
You suggest that having both "colour" and "color" is not a problem because if an ignorant reader inquires at the help desk as to why Wikipedia has this "misspelling" we can provide a proper explanation for it. The problem with this line of reasoning is that we can do likewise in explaining why both "she" and "it" are present, it may be a slightly more complex answer, but I trust our help desk volunteers are more than up to the task.
I just don't see she/it equal to dates, times, and eras, or regional spelling differences. As much as you claim that tone is subjective, it is a fact that applying female pronouns to an inanimate is to add personal attachment. So there's no way we can use "she". The answer provided now hasn't won me over and i imagine if it ever did go to help desk, it wont be a satisfactory answer. Because the answer goes against Wikipedia's standards.
I noted that, and also noted there are more narrowly tailored ways to address it equally well.
If it doesn't involve first dibs, local consensus, or owning, then i am all ears on how we can narrowly tailor ways to address it.
agree wholeheartedly, the appropriate question to ask is "how do we best achieve neutrality?" In many cases this is an issue upon which reasonable minds may differ.
I will provide my criteria for neutrality, and you don't have to agree with it, but i would like you to provide yours.
  1. First of all, is the term factual? Clearly not as ships at the moment dont have AI with self-awareness.
  2. Second, we have to verify if "She" is being as a standard, or just personal preference by specific sources (is this a nickname/jargon or not). The fact that it is not universal tells me it is not widely accepted standard anymore. So i'm saying this is jargon or something very similar to jargon. 3:1 difference on books doesn't help me and i theorize it may be bigger outside of just books. I'm theorizing around at least 7:1 or 10:1 which is a significant margin.
  3. The origins of using she used for professional/technical reasons? Its related to cultural superstitions.
  4. The current use for she for ships used for professional/technical reasons? No
  5. Does it remove professionalism or neutral tone if we remove she? it adds personal inclination or at least interpret it as such.
  6. Does it add professionalism or neutral tone if we remove she? To a degree, yes. As there is nothing to suggest that Wikipedia has any personal inclination towards ships as opposed to other inanimate objects. Even Siri iconic for her female voice is also referred to as "it". I know that is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST, but i think it adds context of what kind of situation we're dealing with.
  7. Does it provide consistency? Now this is one subject i brought up a while ago, but i think is worth mentioning. Although "she" is accepted in some articles for ships, i personally find it bad grammar to call a ship "she" and not consistently refer to her as "She" or "Ship's name". If we call it as "the ship" and "she" i find that to be bad grammar. Just like how we use he and she but we never refer to other people as "the human". i feel the same way for ships or any object with no self-awareness if they have to be addressed as "she".Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 22:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
@Blue Pumpkin Pie:I personally think that list is even greater for not maritime sources. From a 10:1,but that's just a theory. But yes, what you provided to me is evidence to use "it" exclusively. And that's fine, there are many other editors that believe we should just standardize on whatever usage has 51% of the total. That is not my position, nor has it been the position of the community as a whole so far to date, however you are hardly alone in feeling that way and it is a completely reasonable position to take.

But i don't want to contemplate whether true neutrality can be achieved or not. If wikipedia's goal is to be as neutral as it possibly can, then i'll still prefer to have that discussion. I wasn't attempting to be contemplative, and I believe we are having a discussion :)

i see it as favoritism and WP:OWN and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. not Wikilove or peace maintaining. It will be impact western maritime editors, but i dont think its anything they can't adjust to. Especially for the sake of Wikipedia's goals and the readers. Perhaps that is how this comes across to you, but neither I nor for that matter the community as a whole have felt that allowance for significant minority usages constitutes favoritism. Simply a recognition that many usages are out there and that mandating the use of the most common one could in of itself be seen as favoritism. I don't see this as OWN, if it were well someone would be claiming ownership and not discussing reasonably, moreover they would be demanding we follow only the maritime usage "she" and not be OK with making an allowance for both. I stake my claims about the maintenance of peace based on past experience, however if you believe that peace would be better served by mandating majority/plurality usages across the board then perhaps you should start a discussion, I think the Village Pump would be an ideal place.

There is none, because there is no article that refers to nations as she. But lets look at sources that use "she" exclusively for their nations and see if they dont add a single hint of patriotism or even personal familiarity. This is not evidence, but more speculation and suggestion of where evidence may be found. Even if we did so it would be hard to come up with a metric for rating "jingoism" objectively and I doubt we would get results commiserate to the effort such an enterprise would involve.

I just don't see she/it equal to dates, times, and eras, or regional spelling differences. As much as you claim that tone is subjective, it is a fact that applying female pronouns to an inanimate is to add personal attachment. So there's no way we can use "she". The answer provided now hasn't won me over and i imagine if it ever did go to help desk, it wont be a satisfactory answer. Because the answer goes against Wikipedia's standards. I'm afraid you are not quite correct, it is not a "fact" that this adds personal attachment. Many languages gender items without a hint of personal attachment in certain regional varieties of English gender is also assigned to inanimate objects in a systemic manner and the users don't see it as an attachment there either. Now for some people it is true that it represents an attachment, but this is primarily an informal usage and so needn't overly concern us for the purposes of this discussion.

If it doesn't involve first dibs, local consensus, or owning, then i am all ears on how we can narrowly tailor ways to address it. Simple make it clear this usage is only permitted in a nautical context. If that is the case it won't spread. And given the diminishing usage even in this context I don't see an expansion to further out of scope articles as likely to be a serious issue.

I will provide my criteria for neutrality, and you don't have to agree with it, but i would like you to provide yours. Happy to, I thought I'd made this clear previously, but perhaps not all in one place.

Minority usages should generally be permitted if they have significant representation in formal written works produced in the last 25 years.

I allow that this may vary between ENGVARS and the minority usage may be permitted only in those ENGVARS where it is significant.

What is % constitutes significance is context dependent and judged in light of the quality of the data available. Very roughly if the usage ratio is 10:1 it deserves scrutiny and we should seriously consider discouraging it's use. If the usage ratio is 20:1 than it would take some very solid reasoning to convince me not to discourage its use. I stand by the above in the context of the current debate, and have already made it clear to the closer that if evidence shows the ratio is 20:1 for any variety of English, my vote is support insofar as it applies to that variety specifically. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the attachment argument, it may arise because it is an exception. If all inanimate objects had a gender it wouldn't be the case, the fact that ships are the only one that are being assigned a gender makes it so. El Millo (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
@Facu-el Millo:Well in many varieties of English other inanimate objects are assigned gender. However when it comes to the larger national varieties of English your hypothesis may have validity. I would conjecture it is a combination of that and the increasing rarity of the usage. Personally, I've been extensively exposed to both usages and so when reading a work of maritime history I wouldn't even notice which usage the author chose, and would have to crack the book back open if you asked me a month later. However, as this usage becomes more rare in combination with the fact that it is already an unusual exception to the norm I think people who are not familiar with the usage will increasingly read-in additional meaning even if it is not intended in many cases, but again this is just idle speculation. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 00:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

This is an interesting proposal, which would promote a very general version of Wikipedia:Use modern language (which I very much agree with) from essay to guideline. I'd phrase it the other way around - usages that do not have significant representation in formal written works in the past 25 years should be excluded. Not every usage pattern from 25 years ago is still acceptable, for example the ways we talk about Internet technology and LGBT people have changed quite rapidly. And not everything in formal writing is compatible with other directives that exclude e.g. jargon, non-gender-neutral language, and curly quote marks. -- Beland (talk) 06:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Beland:It looks like you prefer the contra-positive formulation to my original, but since the two are logically equivalent the choice is primarily one of clarity and style. I largely agree with your second point, sometimes usage does change quite rapidly and then it is more of a judgement call. I feel that in this as in other areas Wikipedia should be a lagging indicator rather than a leader, but some kind of exception needs to be made in cases where usage has changed overwhelmingly quickly, as Wikipedia should not be the only, or only one of a handful, to retain a dated usage. Quotations are an interesting exception in that Wikipedia is somewhat unique in preferring this style, however it is necessary concession to ensuring that searches work as the typical user expects them to, as I mentioned before, we try to balance many competing concerns as best we can. For non-gender neutral language that's not quite true we only require it "where this can be done with clarity and precision" nor does it apply "to wording about one-gender contexts", which is fully in line with virtually all other current formal writing, at least in the western world, though I'll concede, thinking about by shelf, that once we get towards the edge of the range, late 1990s, the case becomes a bit trickier. As for jargon it is allowed but we just try to explain it. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't read the two formulations are logically equivalent, because the truth values are ternary (expliticly allowed, explicitly excluded, and neither). The first one sounds like it's trying to override or at least conflicts with the rules on jargon, GNL, quote marks, etc., whereas the second one is silent on whether or not usage that isn't excluded is actually allowed. -- Beland (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
@Beland: Ah yes, good catch, that's what I get for writing in haste the truth values are indeed ternary, and hopefully you don't mind me moving this to keep the subthreads intact. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Well in many varieties of English other inanimate objects are assigned gender. Can you please give an example, other than the one we are discussing? I don't think this is true, and I think making it an ENGVAR issue, in the absence of strong evidence that it is one, is unhelpful. --The Huhsz (talk) 12:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
@The Huhsz: In fact, I thought I did link Gender_in_English#Metaphorical_gender and specifically this reference, which I intend to read at some point Gender_in_English#cite_note-Siemund-15, keep in mind that this article has been changed a fair amount recently, perhaps due to this debate so sometimes you may need to check the subsection from the correct permalink. To be honest, despite my frequent travels I can't recall hearing this before but I may not have noticed it at the time, however the claim does seem well-supported by the literature. Since I'm lazy and you wanted a specific example, I'll copy paste from the article here, but you can find it there too For example, in some dialects of southwest England, masculine pronouns are used for individuated or countable matter, such as iron tools, while the neuter form is used for non-individuated matter, such as liquids, fire and other substances. More narrowly as applies to this particular case it is a matter of insufficient data, we have claims that it is or is not an ENGVAR issue but support for them is quite minimal. We have a handful of style guides that give us a narrow idea of how newspapers in the US and UK are supposed to write, even though it is manifest that they don't follow their own style guides and sometimes are inconsistent within the course of one article which we know from other examples, and essentially no data for the vast majority of the English Speaking world, see my point (c) above. From the limited toying with online tools it does seem the usage is less in the US than in other locations on average, but is this usage difference the same across the board, or is it because the US and most places outside the US are the same with the exception of one outlier that skews the rest of the data? I have no way to answer this question, or even given the roughness of the data if this is just a phantom resulting from skewed data sets. Hence my note to closer, since I'm going to be unable to participate in this discussion within 24 hours, to consider my vote support for specific ENGVARS if evidence comes forward that shows an overwhelming usage prevalence in any variety. I will say I find it extremely unlikely that this usage pattern does not have some degree of variance, in fact to claim otherwise as you seem to be doing would be an extraordinary claim given the variance in so may other usages, the question is how large is this variance, as to that I do not know. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Alright everyone, it's been interesting. Scanning back over this discussion, and thinking back I was typically jamming out responses as fast as I could type in 2 to 3 minutes whenever I checked the thread, instead of taking 20-30 to compose my thoughts and write lucid prose, and I'm doing it again of course. However, upon reflection, I think we could have cut to the heart of the mater far more quickly had I done so and perhaps saved other peoples time and not just my own, I swear I really did have some important other things to do. I suppose the follow-up copyedits to fix my own prose helped bump my edit-count

So I hope I answered everyone's questions, I know my heart was never really in it, but when all is said and done the resolution won't be any different than had I never participated anyway, so it goes.

I do hope that in this as in other issues as the community moves forward we can find a way to disagree without being disagreeable regardless of the outcome.

I won't formally close this thread or anything, but I'm out of here soon, so as with talking to a wall, no one is likely to find further conversation illuminating. Or maybe you do get in contact with someone else at this location, but whoever it is will be highly confused and possibly disagree with everything I have to say. I don't intend to edit from anywhere else so if an anon pops in claiming to be me, it isn't. Perhaps in a few months when I'm back in the area I'll drop back in on some discussions and help avoid no consensus AFD closes, I suppose it will depend on how I'm feeling about the project at the time.

Until then so long and thanks for all the fish feedback. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 05:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

And that's fine, there are many other editors that believe we should just standardize on whatever usage has 51% of the total. That is not my position, nor has it been the position of the community as a whole so far to date, however you are hardly alone in feeling that way and it is a completely reasonable position to take. I don't want you to oversimplify my stance to want majority simply by "1%" difference. Like i said before, i don't believe this is a 2:3 difference or 2:1. My theory is that it is actually 10:1, as in estimate of 10% of actual sources continue to use "She" instinctively. And for terms like "she" where it is completely subjective, i would need it to be a 10:1 difference. And of course, we need to address if these terms are equal or not.
I stake my claims about the maintenance of peace based on past experience, however if you believe that peace would be better served by mandating majority/plurality usages across the board then perhaps you should start a discussion, I think the Village Pump would be an ideal place. I'm sorry, but i'm going to be very blunt on this. If you think i have to go to Village Pump for a topic you brought up, you're sorely mistaken. Either you believe it's relevant topic to have in this discussion, or you believe it belongs in WP:VILLAGE. You can't have both scenarios where you think Wikipeace matters in this discussion but the opposite you need to go to Village.
I'm afraid you are not quite correct, it is not a "fact" that this adds personal attachment. Many languages gender items without a hint of personal attachment in certain regional varieties of English gender is also assigned to inanimate objects in a systemic manner and the users don't see it as an attachment there either. Now for some people it is true that it represents an attachment, but this is primarily an informal usage and so needn't overly concern us for the purposes of this discussion.
As someone who speaks a latin-based language, i am aware that other languages will use gender-based pronouns for objects. But the difference between those languages and English is that it is integrated to its very core of the language. English is not the same, or at least it's no longer the case in modern english. It has been proven below the main reason why we sources use "she". I don't understand how you can continue to have this conversation but avoid all of the necessary context to evaluate it appropriately.
Simple make it clear this usage is only permitted in a nautical context. If that is the case it won't spread. And given the diminishing usage even in this context I don't see an expansion to further out of scope articles as likely to be a serious issue. Why only nautical? If you can provide a valid reason why we should only do it for nautical and no other form of object, then i can support it. As of now, Ships are treated as an exception, not the rule. We have to address this with the right attention. Why not Airplanes like Lucky Lady II?
Minority usages should generally be permitted if they have significant representation in formal written works produced in the last 25 years. Yes, i agree with your criteria, but the problem is that we first have to evaluate whether they are equal or not before we even evaluate whether they have significant representation. And that's what my criteria is all about, evaluating whether "it" and "she" are truly equal interchangeable terms. In this case, they're not. It matters "how" its being used too. If "she" is being used because of something as subjective as "tradition".Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 16:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Spy-cicle's !vote

Strong Oppose per MOS:RETAIN and WP:ENGVAR; It has common usage, is not sexist, and is standard convention. I think most of the arguments given by the nominator why was they think using "It" is better than "she" but most reasons brought up are not valid reasons to use on it on Wikipedia. For instance, the first argument was per Wikipedia:Use modern language which is an essay not a policy or guideline so does not have any real relevance here. But let's assume it does, referring to ships as "she" is in common usage. However, I think the reason there is such a split in these discussion is beucase "she" is not used as commonly as it is in British/Commonwealth usage. Perhaps American English articles could use "it" and others use "she" however I think that would be create even more inconsistency.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

comment @Spy-cicle: can you verify that "she" is the standard convention and common usage? In order to prove that, you have to use actual modern and neutral sources with no maritime inclinations calling ships as "she". The reason why i ask this is because there's an entire discussion below proving the complete opposite.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 22:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
@Blue Pumpkin Pie: Here is some usage of female-sided pronous to when talking about ships (like "she", "her" and "sister"): The Times (she) [66], The Guardian (she) [67], The Telegraph (she, her, sister) [68], The Economist (below), US Navy (below) Business Insider (she, her) [69], ABC News (sister) [70], NBC News (sister) [71], FleetMon (she) [72], TradeWinds (sister) [73], World Maritime News [74], The News (Portsmouth) (she, her, sister) [75], Phys.org (sister) [76]. The are probably more. I think this is a clear example of American English vs British/Commonwealth English on Wikipedia. We must remember that The English Wikipedia prefers no national variety of English over any other per WP:ENGVAR so there is we should not mandate "it" over "she".  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
@Spy-cicle:Although i concede that there is still a relevant usage for "she" and "it" (shown below of 2:1 with just google books from anonymous IP editor), there is still no excuse we shouldn't have a Standard for it. For me, the lesser of two evils is using it over she 100% of the time. Now, "Sister ship" to me is not the same as adding a pronoun. There are sister sites, and sister companies, and sister planets, all while still continue to refer to as "it". So "she" and "sister-noun" is not the same thing. Those are neutral tones. If this was ENGVAR issue, it would've been different, but it's not, Both UK and US vary between she and it, it just depends on the source. Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 19:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
@Blue Pumpkin Pie: I do see your point about using sister as it can be referred to other things like sister cities. Removing the examples of sister that still includes: The Times, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Economist, US Navy, Business Insider, FleetMon, World Maritime News, The News (Portsmouth). I think it is also worth noting that some of the arguments here are simply in favour of it since it is gender-neutral. Does that mean we should replace the usage of sister city to sibling city? No becuase it has been used by a variety of sources. In regards to the other point, I think we need to investigate more if there is more of a British English vs American English issue. But even if there is not there is still a large usage of "she" we should not abandon it; the current MoS around ships is fine as is. After all if If it ain't broke, don't fix it (as well as WP:RETAIN).  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 14:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
In regards the usage of "she" here are some more sources pointed out by Necrothesp: "The Royal Navy, for a start. [77], [78], [79], [80]. Then we've got BBC News, ITV News, HMS Victory, HMS Unicorn, the Ministry of Defence, the National Museum of the Royal Navy, HMS Warrior, the Royal Australian Navy, the Port of London Authority, the Scottish Government"  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 14:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
If the term "sibling-city" or "sibling ship" or "sibling planet" becomes prevalent in the english language, then yes i would concede that we can use that term instead of sister-city/planet/company. As for maritime sources choosing to use "she". However, outside of Wikipedia sources have their own standardization. Either the source will refer to ships as she, or refer to them as it. And rarely are they inconsistent. And i think its important we standardize the usage.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 16:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
As demonstrated in the section on Usage of "she" in Reliable Sources there is still a plethora of publications mostly in British/Commonwealth that use "she" over "it". Perhaps, its usage is declining in North American and that is absolutely fine. But remember the English Wikipedia does not prefer national varieties of English over any other. So its decline in American English usage (even though some above still use it) should not reflect the entire English Wikipedia's removal of the word since it is clear that its usage is still prominent. Like in the UK, where almost all reliable publications use "she" over "it" as seen above.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 14:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
@Spy-cicle: Once again, i insist on the idea that "she" and "it" are not equal or interchangeable. You'll also have to prove that the decline is only happening in North America because there are European museums that have made official statements that they'll stop using she when referring to boats as well. If the terms were equal, we wouldn't be having this debate.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 20:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Look at the section called "Usage of "She" in reliable sources" below it shows that most sources that use "she" are UK/Commonwealth. Hence, trying to overturn this guideline is a violation of WP:ENGVAR since the English Wikipedia does not prefer national varieties of English over any other.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes i'm aware of that, but i'm not seeing it as a standard in UK and i don't think we should group "commonwealth" with UK either. The US uses it aswell, but i just not convinced this is WP:ENGVAR issue. I'm still convinced this is just Jargon, and some locations may choose to use the jargon more often, but i don't consider that the same as WP:ENGVAR. I'm also not convinced that using "she" is approrpriate for an encyclopedia.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 23:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Oh cobblers, its those who want to change the established guideline that she and it are both acceptable who need to prove their point. Anyhow I've just looked up HMS Belfast at the Imperial War Museum - they use she, Cutty Sark at the National Maritime museum - she, Hms Victory at their museum - she, USS Missouri museum - um that is she too, as is the USS Alabamba museum Lyndaship (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
@Lyndaship: one is factual and objection, another is subjective and based on traditions. And unless these sources have other reasons to use "she" other than the mariner's tradition, i think it doesn't matter as much how many sources choose to use she. We still call planets it, and AI with female voices continue to be considered it (Siri), and some airplanes, and famous tanks as well are called it.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 21:24, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
BTW, you can refer to anyone editing from here as "Spectrum" instead of just IP, it's a new nickname, but it seems to be a good one. I don't mind being called IP either, just thought you should know. Actually, I dropped in to point out that there has thus far been an unfortunately narrow focus on just 2, admittedly widespread varieties, of English, when Wikipedia supports around two-dozen, Just take a look, It'll be easier going forward if we get more data that concerns particularized usage in these other varieties as well. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of SandyGeorgia's !vote and new proposal

Will:

Why is this a discussion about a binary choice of pronouns rather than a discussion about poor writing writing that can be improved throughout ship articles, offering a perfect example of how to use gender neutral language? Convince me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Strike, rephrase, per discussion below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
It seems a bit unfriendly to demand that editors spend an hour of their time or however long it would take to read these articles in full, so I'll just summarize the point that's being made: These articles avoid using any pronouns to refer to the ship in question. I skimmed most of both, and honestly unless I had been looking for it I wouldn't have noticed the lack of pronouns. I couldn't find any passages that were awkward as a result. I don't agree that using pronouns to refer to ships is poor writing, and it seems like a bit of a scorched earth "if you can't share your toys then no one gets to play with any of them" solution, but maybe it's the solution that actually would generate the least distraction for all readers. There might be some situations in other articles where not being able to use a pronoun causes awkward phrasing, but hey, maybe not. Certainly this seems like a better solution than the current rule, and in a roundabout way eliminates the exception to gender-neutral language (without necessarily making the MOS shorter). -- Beland (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
(And speaking of the current rule, would it be allowed under that rule to change an article to eliminate ship pronouns entirely, or should we think of that as a third style that should be retained without arbitrary changes? If it's allowed to eliminate pronouns, would it not be allowed to introduce them since that would be choosing one of the styles?) -- Beland (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
An interesting new dilemma because of the binary choice offered by this RFC. (One can use the search function to avoid reading the articles, to discover that there truly is not a single use of "it" or "she" to refer to the vessel.) As another issue, see SS Imperator. Since "he" was mandated by the Kaiser, notice how tortuous it is to read this version of that article, compared to the current version that has switched to "she" (which raises an odd dilemma). The earlier "he" version seems very stilted; I find it tough reading. That's how current articles using "she" appear to readers who are unfamiliar with the historic convention. After having read through the two articles above, which avoid pronouns of either type, are those articles not easier to read? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
The referents are certainly impressively clear, though there are unrelated issues with sounding on the verge of jargony. I was thinking about how universal this technique could be; these two articles are about specific named ships, but maybe we would run into problems in articles about ships or types of ships or things on ships or whatever in general, where "the ship" and "the vessel" are the long form and a pronoun would be the expected short form. -- Beland (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
You say "It is possible to write ship articles with neither pronoun." But why should we not avail ourselves of the helpful role played by pronouns in our language? Bus stop (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Bus stop, I moved your comment to the discussion section. Do you find anything awkward in the sample articles above? I find them to be more precise and a pleasure to read. Certainly, there are perhaps times when we could use "it", but the samples demonstrate there is zero reason to continue the historic convention of "she". (This is not intended as a criticism of the editors who did this when it was convention.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Isn't the answer "because a significant fraction of editors objects to the other pronoun"? Maybe I'm assuming too much; I've outlined reasons not to use "she" (dated, perceived by some as sexist) and reasons to use "it" (clarity, in common modern usage). I've heard reasons to use "she" (still in use in some publications), but I don't remember any arguments about why "it" should be avoided? I guess that would make it a choice between "she or it", "it", or no pronouns? Which raises the question for editors in support of "she", would you rather have "it" only or no pronouns? -- Beland (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Or, remove "she", while minimizing "it" wherever possible by re-casting sentences. At any rate, it is now demonstrated that "she" is simply an unnecessary archaic practice, meaning that we can remove any specific exclusion from the gender-neutral section, and let good writing prevail. I'll have a look at some more general articles and report back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Beland, here is a ship-type with no "it" or "she": Comus-class corvette. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC) PS, because "they" is perfectly natural in this case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Ah, it uses pronouns, but the gender-neutral plural "they". Nice. -- Beland (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I read the King Edward article, it does rather read like one of those exercises one did in the first year of secondary school with a thesaurus and the instruction "avoid using pronouns", as an object lesson in why we do use pronouns and common terms. I don't think it's good writing at all. It's not bad, as such, but it's not good. And it does appear to use it to refer to a ship - "the seagoing prototype Turbinia experienced engine problems in its expensive development". DuncanHill (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
I would offer that as a comparison to the stilted "he" version of another article, it reads well. (Yes, you did find an "it" ... sorry my search missed that.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm out of here soon, so you can reply to the below but it's not likely to do much good, but I'll throw my thoughts out there anyway.

I would conjecture that in the vast majority of cases this style could be adopted and would be invisible to most readers. And HMS Calliope (1884) is a detailed and well-written articles, the kind that restores my faith that the project is still capable of producing quality content, I didn't have time to read the other one. There are also likely going to be cases where there's no good way to avoid a pronoun without producing something grotesque but hopefully just a comparative handful, in which case there will be much less to argue about. There's not enough discussion here for me to get the pulse of the community on this one, but as much work as it might take to do right, if this appears to be the best way to defuse tensions in the interim before this moves to its final conclusion it seems well-worth exploring. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 05:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

HMS Calliope (1884) also indicates there are still some articles—among the many listed at WP:FA— that still meet WP:WIAFA. As Beland indicates elsewhere, FAs are no longer being consistently tracked and reviewed at WP:FAR, while the reviewing standards for promotion have also considerably declined over the last five years. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

General discussion

Why some people consider it sexist

I did some research on this question. It's worth noting not everyone considers it sexist, and many people consider the idea that it's sexist to be PC gone amok. The fact that some people think it's sexist is probably motivating those people as well as people who are neutral on the question not to use this language, making the language change faster. There are still other people who never thought about it being sexist but who just aren't exposed to it and it sounds like an old-timey sailor. I don't think we should try to get consensus on this question, but I think it's useful to explain why some people do have rational reasons to hold this position, even if you personally don't agree with them.

@Martin of Sheffield: Apparently the OED does not endorse the idea that this practice has anything to do with grammatical gender from the Old English system; it's unclear whether it was influenced by grammatical gender in French or Latin. Even if so, the fact that this specific usage has persisted despite the fact that English does not have grammatical gender for inanimate objects in general, could have happened for sexist reasons. But it seems more likely this practice arises from personification of an object with which people have an intimate relationship.

It's also unclear the practice derives from the practice of mounting a female figurehead on the front of the boat. That could easily be criticized as sexist, too, but men and animals have also been used as figureheads in various cultures.

  • Most of the satirical explanations widely circulated among sailors are blatantly sexist, like "it takes a lot of paint to make one look good".
  • It's a choice about women arising from an environment where women were excluded (and a time where they were considered property) - any language choice made about a group without their inclusion is usually received as or at least suspected to be mockery, offensive, or hateful.
  • Personifying an object is not offensive, but personifying all objects of a particular type with a particular gender inevitably raises the question, why that gender and not the other one, or why not both. This is not explained by saying "all nouns have an arbitrary gender" because in English inanimate ones don't. Any explanation has to involve "ships are like women because..." which inevitably must stereotype both women and men, which is sexist against one gender or the other, or "well, there were a bunch of men around so the choice of a female name or gender was appropriate because..." which while it might true in the sense that men have different interpersonal relationships with women than with other men, just underscores the sexist exclusion of women at the time, and also either ignores gay men or underscores that they were not tolerated at the time either.
  • It creates two groups of pronouns, one for men, and one for women and inanimate objects, which seems degrading to women.

-- Beland (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Here's a 15-minute audio interview with an expert on the subject, Ella Tennant, an English Language Teaching Fellow at Keele University: Ella Tennant: Referring to ships as "she" is sexist

My summary for those that don't have the time to listen: Her view is that the usage is problematic because it categorizes women as objects that generally men are in control of, and "any inanimate object that is referred to in a gendered way ...can provoke quite strong reactions in people". She references a quote about the representations of the world being constructed by men who confuse them with the absolute truth. She finds the view that a ship has a female persona because it is a sailor or captain's mother (and that this is considered an honor) to be patronizing, and this view is shared by a female friend of hers who is a competitive sailor. In response to the idea that this is not explicitly derogatory: "Not every woman may be a mother, not every woman may have a nurturing tendency" despite the biological differences between men and women, and assigning mothering and nurturing as female attributes is sexist, marginalizing women and excluding them from other roles in society. "The language we use has the power to create gender determinism" and perpetuate authority over women by men. On the relative importance of this issue, she does acknowledge the many other crises of our time, but says "the language we use can reflect and construct our worldview in certain ways." She also points out that feminine forms have been added to languages with grammatical gender where there have previously only been male terms, for equality reasons. -- Beland (talk) 07:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I find such analyses over-complex, preferring to simply point out that calling ships she is pretentious and stupid. EEng 14:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Personifying an object is not offensive, but personifying all objects of a particular type with a particular gender inevitably raises the question, why that gender and not the other one, or why not both. That's easy. If ships were called "he" we would be implying that they were prone to sinking. We use "she" because we would like to think that a ship will stay afloat. This is analogous to our preference for liking to think that a female will carry a pregnancy to birth and that both will survive a hazardous journey. A ship is analogous to pregnancy in that it provides life-support to vulnerable inhabitants. This is purely linguistic. It is no more sexist than a "male" electrical plug and a "female" electric outlet. We make it easy on our mind by crafting linguistic analogies that aid memory. Bus stop (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Implying that men are prone to sinking or women are prone to floating or men are not life-giving all seem incompatible with the notions of gender equality some people hold to be very important. -- Beland (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, Beland, men don't literally sink, but the male of the species is notoriously bad at conceiving young of their kind and internally carrying and nourishing these fetuses until birth. The male of the species are just bad at it. Their heart may be in the right place but they simply can't seem to get the knack of doing it right. Bus stop (talk) 03:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Men can give life by providing food and shelter and medicine. They also provide half the genetic material necessary to make a baby. Women are often stereotyped as nurturing because of their anatomical role, and many find this offensive. -- Beland (talk) 06:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
If someone is looking for reasons to be offended, they may also find this analogy to be the product of a mindset that values women only for their ability to provide children, which does not align with modern notions of gender equality. -- Beland (talk) 14:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Comment - We may also note that the miller, as the sailor when referring to his ship, speaks of his mill as being of the feminine gender : "Ah! She's been a fine old mill in her time." The practice of using the feminine pronoun for ships is immemorial ; it may have arisen, I am told, from the resemblance of a ship in full sail to a graceful woman. - William Coles Finch (1933). Watermills and Windmills. p. 62. Mjroots (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not describe mills as gendered. -- Beland (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
...Because the WikiProject covering them decided not to. Mjroots (talk) 11:02, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Just a note... in German (and most Nordic languages) ships are deemed masculine and called “he”. This makes me think that the English usage derives from Latin via French usage. Blueboar (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Without evidence, this is merely speculation. But I think it's irrelevant to our readers where it came from; what's more important is whether or not people are still using the gendered form, and what people think about it now compared to the neuter alternative, not what they thought even fifty years ago. -- Beland (talk) 03:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Can anyone think of an inanimate object that is referred to in English as "he"? – Levivich 20:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
    • "The enemy", as in "we have met the enemy and he is ours". Maybe not exactly an "inanimate object", but something that would not otherwise be referred to by a singular personal pronoun. --Trovatore (talk) 06:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • It’s unnecessary to decide whether she is or is not sexist. It’s sufficient that it’s pretentious and stupid. EEng 23:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Nice point @EEng:—before we even get to the exclusionary aspect, it's pretentious. Tony (talk) 11:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
"it’s pretentious" This is tantamount to saying you just don't like it or that it offends your sensibilities. But you cannot explain why. So, no one should use "she" or "her" in relation to ships because in your opinion this aspect of the English language is "pretentious". And by the way, what is the "exclusionary aspect"? I must have missed that. Have we established that there is an "exclusionary aspect"? Bus stop (talk) 15:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Well, I've yet to find a dictionary that describes it as "pretentious", but at least one does describe it as "old fashioned", and that's a pretty objective source. -- Beland (talk) 06:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Dictionaries don't use terminology like pretentious and stupid -- you have to read between the lines. EEng 21:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
That argument sounds like a teenager who responds to everything with "Lame!" There's no further debate because one side is saying that they don't want to have a mature discussion.  Stepho  talk  23:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
One side is simply stating the obvious. EEng 00:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
No, that side is simply stating their opinion as though it is a fact.  Stepho  talk  00:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
That’s just your opinion. EEng 02:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
So sayeth the dude. CThomas3 (talk) 03:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
I do not see a rational conclusion to this discussion or an answer to the question. The human need to genderize things is obvious in other languages like Spanish where even inanimate objects are genderized (mesa=table is female), whereas a sword is espada and a pen is bolígrafo. There does not appear to be any logic in whether an object has a female (a) or male (o) ending
Although I totally agree that bestowing gender on an inaminate object is ridiculous. humans do it. Some men will refer to their automobile as she and give it feminine name, some women will refer to it as he and give it a masculine name. I suggest that referring to a vessel as "she" is a form of endearment, after all sailors (including captains and navigators) spent more time aboard the vessel than they did with their wives and family, and who hasn't heard of being "married to the job".
On the other hand the whole business is archaic and harks back to a different era where the woman's role in society was diminutive and subordinate to the man's. Maybe it is time for a change, as society and gender roles are no longer as rigid, at least in much of the West, as they once were.Oldperson (talk) 23:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
That sounds like you are asking for Wikipedia to be a tool in a campaign to right great wrongs. That's not our job. HiLo48 (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
That essay is about editing of facts to support a POV; this is a bit different, though I could see someone taking English usage changes too far and trying to get neologistic language adopted for political reasons. In this case, though, we have two widely accepted styles, one of which offends some readers, and we could drop the controversial variant in favor of a neutral one that would distract some people less from conveying facts about ships. -- Beland (talk) 03:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
If we're going to consider this, then I would bring up WP:PRESENTISM as an argument to follow the sourcing. Yes, today, calling a modern vessel as if it were a female entity is disrespectful, but it wasn't the case decades ago and was standard practice looooong ago. As others have said, we're not here to right wrongs, and we should follow the use of female pronouns referring to ships when the sourcing clearly shows that to be common, but assume that a new vessel like most modern cruise ships, tanks, etc. will be neutral pronouns in the sources (eg Sinking of MV Conception one I helped with about a 2019 vessel disaster, I cannot ever recall seeing the boat or related vessels called by a female pronoun". --Masem (t) 03:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Here is a good quality source referring to the Costa Concordia disaster of 2012. "Her design service speed was 19.6 knots, but during sea trials, she achieved a speed of 23 knots." "This tore a 50 m gash on the port side of her hull, which soon flooded parts of the engine room resulting in power loss to her propulsion and electrical systems." "With water flooding in and listing, the ship drifted back to Giglio Island where she grounded 500 m north of the village of Giglio Porto, resting on her starboard side in shallow waters with most of her starboard side under water." Why shouldn't we be allowed to use standard English? Bus stop (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm not saying you can't: I do not have an idea of how the whole of sources related to the Costa Concordia refer to the ship, but that's what I've advised: if the majority of sources use the female pronouns, there's no harm for our article to use that. If they don't as was definitely in the case of the MV Conception, then we should not be adding them. If there is an unclear split in the sources, then I would suggest we default to genderless particularly if it is a newer vessel. My point is that standardizing away from female pronouns particularly for older ships, simply because some see it as sexist, is not appropriate. --Masem (t) 04:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Think about this. The ludicrous situation. Calling the USS Ronald Reagan, USS George HW Bush, USS John McCain.."she". A transgendered naval vessel none the less. Do you think that these distinguished men would approve of being referred to as "She". (ship or not) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldperson (talk • contribs) 20:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
That'll just result in inconsistent usage, sometimes even in the same article if its time scope is broad.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree that we want to be consistent within an article... but there is no need to be consistent across the entire project. Our current guidance allows for BOTH “it” and “she”. And that is fine. Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
One article is fine and dandy, but let's look at the aggregate thanks to Google: "Costa Concordia" "her side" → 7,340 results; "Costa Concordia" "its side" → 1,030,000 results; generally, only British papers used "her side" though on U.S. CNN writer used both "its" and "her" when referring to the ship, using only "her" in a poetic manner. SportingFlyer T·C 11:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
In an article titled "Ship in Oil Spill Recovering Where She Was Born" The New York Times, writing about the Exxon Valdez, writes "A year after she was involved in the worst oil spill in American history, the Exxon Valdez is 70 percent repaired and four months from being sent back to sea." "Three hundred workers have been on double shifts since August, repairing the damage that the 987-foot tanker suffered when she went aground on a reef in Prince William Sound, Alaska, on March 24, 1989, spilling nearly 11 million gallons of crude oil." "'This repair has made shipbuilding history' because of the difficulty of repairs made in the water before the ship was put in the dry dock and because of her great size, said Fred N. Hallett, vice president of finance for the shipbuilding company, which built the tanker." "Although her stern shows her home port as Wilmington, Del., the Exxon Valdez was born here in San Diego six years ago in the same drydock where the repairs are being made." "'It was like your kid was coming home,' said Mike Bichoux, who helped build the $115 million tanker and now helps repair her. "When the Exxon Valdez ran aground in Alaska, her gashes, more than 650 feet long, required replacing 30 percent of the bow. Her hull needed shoring up. Repairs were necessary on half of her two dozen compartments." "Her arrival here last July was delayed for three weeks after it was discovered that seven big steel plates were hanging loose from her' flat bottom and there was a light 18-mile slick around her." Bus stop (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Another article on the Exxon Valdez oil spill, this time in Rolling Stone. Same thing. The ship is referred to as "she" or "her". Bus stop (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Those two articles are from 30 years ago. – Levivich 03:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
"Exxon Valdez" "her hull" → 1,320 results, "its hull" → 4,810 results ("her/its arrival" was too tainted with talking about humans, "her/its gashes" brought up a total of five combined results, "her/its stern" was in favour of "her stern" but more recent results used "its stern" and there were only about 2,000 combined results, some of which had nothing to do with the ship.) The point is - of course you'll be able to keep cherry-picking sources that use her, but convention now not only uses its but its is the only grammatically correct option. SportingFlyer T·C 03:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
The United States Naval Institute writes about the USS John S. McCain and Alnic MC collision which took place in 2017 saying for instance "She has completed her maintenance period with the most up-to-date multi-mission offensive and defensive capabilities, preparing her to successfully execute a multitude of high-end operations". We also read "During the at-sea testing, the ship and her crew will perform a series of demonstrations to evaluate that the ship’s onboard systems meet or exceed Navy performance specifications". We also read "The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS John S. McCain (DDG 56) completed her necessary repairs and is underway to conduct comprehensive at-sea testing." Also "John S. McCain, assigned to Destroyer Squadron FIFTEEN (DESRON 15) and forward-deployed to Yokosuka, Japan, completed her in-port phase of training, and will continue Basic Phase at-sea training in the upcoming months to certify in every mission area the ship is required to perform and prepare for return to operational tasking." We also find "The USS John S. McCain embodies the absolute fighting spirit of her namesakes, and shows the resiliency of our Sailors. She has completed her maintenance period with the most up-to-date multi-mission offensive and defensive capabilities, preparing her to successfully execute a multitude of high-end operations". The use of "she" and "her" represents refinement. The use of "its" represents crudeness. This initiative to supplant "she" and "her" with "its" is wrongheaded. If anything we should prefer to use "she" and "her" when speaking about ships. But I'm not a member of the language police. So I say editors can use either form. It is not that "its" is unintelligible. But it is less refined. And I'm not "cherry-picking sources". Sources are too easy to find. Bus stop (talk) 04:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
”Refined” is a handy euphemism for “pretentious”, I’ll give you that. EEng 12:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
This is political correctness run amok. In English inanimate objects are not given gendered pronouns—except in this case. For ships we use the pronouns "she" and "her". Those just learning English can be forgiven tor using the pronoun "it" for ships. But it isn't an ideal to be striven for. The wrongheadedness of this discussion is that some are arguing for patently unrefined speech. Unrefined speech is acceptable, intelligible, and even sometimes desirable. But good speech is not supplanted by crude speech. We hold in abeyance good speech when we consciously choose to use coarse language. But we get back to speaking properly when the cause for using course language is no longer applicable. In this case there is no general, longstanding cause for using the more crude pronoun "it" in relation to ships. Sexism in "she" and "her" for ships? Don't make me laugh. I would consider this a funny conversation. If it were not for the fact that I know some people take the balderdash about sexism seriously. Referring to a ship as "she" or "her" is not sexist in any way. Nobody believes the ship is female. Nobody believes females are in some ways like ships. And even if anybody is of the conviction that these ludicrous ideas apply, we are not here to right great wrongs. Bus stop (talk) 14:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Referring to an inanimate object with the neuter pronoun would not be considered "coarse language" by any standard I am aware of. Archon 2488 (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Referring to an inanimate object with the neuter pronoun would not be considered "coarse language" by any standard I am aware of. Except in the case of ships. Ships are referred to as "she" and "her". Bus stop (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Using "it" is considered "coarse language" in the case of ships? As Beland pointed out in his initial post, "she" for ships is disrecommended by reputable usage authorities, including The Chicago Manual of Style, The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, The Associated Press Stylebook, and even the U.S. Navy style guide, which includes the AP Stylebook by reference.. Even our own MOS, which you quoted earlier, gives guidance that either form is acceptable. Please enlighten me with a reputable source that considers the usage of "it" for ships as "coarse language". It is eminently clear that you do not prefer it, but exceptional claims require exceptional sources. CThomas3 (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Have any female editors weighed in here arguing that it is sexist to refer to ships as "she", "her", and "hers"? Bus stop (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure if any females have or not, but I don't see what that has to do with your statement that using "it" to refer to a ship is "coarse language", "crude speech", and not "good writing". I'm asking if you have a reputable source to back up that assertion. CThomas3 (talk) 21:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't have such a source. English uses gender-neutral pronouns except in the case of ships. The use of "she" and "her" for ships represents a special case. Running roughshod over that special case does not convey refinement; it represents crudeness. Again—I don't have a source for that. Bus stop (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Except many have pointed out that English use in this case is rapidly changing, and many modern style guides reflect this change. English continually evolves (indeed, as do all languages), or else we'd be still be using "ye" and "thou". This evolution isn't going to please everyone, as it clearly does not please you. But we'll have to agree to disagree on whether or not that represents crudeness. CThomas3 (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I think it's hilarious that after I've acknowledged some articles which use "she" exist but the vast majority of articles use "its," you still respond with "but this individual article uses "she!"" Googling "USS John McCain" "collision" and "its/her crew" - "its crew" comes up more than twice as often in the results as "her crew" and all reputable news agencies and the Navy use its. You've literally picked the one "article" which uses "her crew" that doesn't quote someone talking about the ship. SportingFlyer T·C 04:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
You've literally picked the one "article" which uses "her crew" that doesn't quote someone talking about the ship. It's a miracle. SportingFlyer—is there any reason we should not use "she" and "her" as pronouns in reference to ships? There is not only one way of speaking. Believe it or not the English language allows for saying things in more than one way. If there is no reason to prefer one way of speaking over the other, then why not leave it up to editorial discretion? Bus stop (talk) 04:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Only one is grammatically correct: "it". – Levivich 04:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
And the grammatically correct version is used the vast majority of the time now. SportingFlyer T·C 04:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Levivich—you wrote "Those two articles are from 30 years ago." So I showed you a source dating from an incident that took place in 2017, the USS John S. McCain and Alnic MC collision. Your response to that now seems to be Only one is grammatically correct: "it". Please tell me—why is "it" the only grammatically correct choice? Bus stop (talk) 04:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
And I pointed out you found one of the few sources that uses "she" in 2017. Grammatically, unless you're specifically talking about a person, English is not a gendered language. A ship is an inanimate object, and inanimate objects take "it/its" as their pronoun. SportingFlyer T·C 05:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
JFGI. – Levivich 05:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
SportingFlyer, Levivich—"English is not a gendered language." As concerns ships, English is a gendered language. The more refined way of referring to ships is to use the pronouns "she" and "her". But the pronoun "it" is not unacceptable. The use of the pronoun "it" in reference to ships simply results in a more crude form of speech. But it is entirely intelligible. Please feel free to use it if it suits your fancy. Bus stop (talk) 05:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
The idea that referring to objects as women is "refined" is a new one, I'll give you that. – Levivich 05:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
No, it's not a gendered language. Using gendered pronouns for inanimate objects is metaphorical or poetic and has no place in an encyclopaedia. You can have the opinion that we should allow for the archaic minority usage, as if I were to start using "ain't" on specific articles referring to the American south - but sources generally agree the use is archaic, even sources from Quebec. The fact it hasn't died out completely yet doesn't mean we should encourage anachronistic grammar. SportingFlyer T·C 05:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
English is definitely not gendered. The only reason we have standing use of referring to ships as "she/her" is because of centuries-old maritime traditions, treating the ship as a woman as to anthropomorphize the vessel not only hoping to treat it with care and kindness to make sure the vessel got them where they needed to go, but that it would be blessed by the weather/gods/whatever as a fair maiden on the ocean. All attitudes that don't exist now, and why we more commonly use "it", but a reason to keep in mind the bulk of the sources used and use what is preferred from those, defaulting to "it" if it is not clear. This is not gendering the language as it is in German or French. --Masem (t) 06:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
We used to always use "he" to mean "he or she", and sometimes use "she" to mean "it". We used to call humankind "mankind" but we've never called it "womankind". When we refer to people as men, we're saying that men are people. When we refer to things as women, we're saying that women are things. Old sources used to refer to people as "negroid", "mongoloid", "lunatic" and "retard", but even when citing such sources, we would never use those words; instead, we'd use words like African, Asian, mentally ill, or developmentally disabled. If a word is a poor choice of word today, then we shouldn't use it today, even if some used it yesterday, even if some will still use it tomorrow. – Levivich 06:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I understand why some people want to use 'it' for grammar reasons. I also understand that some people want to be "modern" and "trendy" by ditching historical usage. But I don't understand why some people think it is explicitly sexist. What is denigrating about it? Are the people who are complaining the ones that are actually upset (eg most women, a minority of women, a group of ultra extreme feminists) or a group of social justice warriors who believe they are championing somebody's rights? I ask because I don't understand where this is coming from. I also notice that the discussion is mostly (all?) from men.  Stepho  talk  22:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the world of political correctness gone haywire. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

  • It also stems from the fact that some editors dislike flexible “rules”. When asking “what should we do in situation X” They want the answer to be “Do Y”... and they really dislike it when the answer is “Do either Y or Z, both are acceptable”. Blueboar (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
    • @GoodDay: I'm afraid I couldn't answer the question about the demographic of who is offended without more research, but I did start this section with a list of reasons. Did those not make sense as reasons someone might come to that conclusion? I'm sure many people in the end just disagree with the reasoning or don't consider it worth fretting about compared to many other gender issues, but I'm trying to help answer the question of why some people think it's sexist. I expect that most people, whether they use "it" or "she" for ships, just plain haven't considered whether "she" is sexist or not. -- Beland (talk) 06:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
@Masem: Responding to your point about avoiding describing the past in modern terms, I don't think that applies here. I often correct anachronisms like "that country didn't exist at the time" or "no one before the Scientific Revolution called themselves a scientist" so I very much support the spirit of that recommendation and awareness of how people actually spoke historically. But when speaking in Wikipedia's own voice, we use present-day language. We don't call movies from the 1920s "talkies" even though that might have been the dominant term at the time. When NASA decided to change its official style recommendation from "manned" to "crewed", it made that retroactive with the exception of proper nouns like the Manned Spaceflight Center. So when talking about Apollo program in the 1960s and 70s, those are now called human spaceflight missions or crewed missions even though everyone called them manned at the time; Wikipedia has mirrored that change. -- Beland (talk) 06:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Which raises a point that if we have new literature talking about old ships that ditch the "she" and that sourcing is more prevalent than the older sources that use "she", then maybe that's a fair point to use "it" for those ships. That NASA now uses "crewed" over "manned" to talk about historic missions is just a similar adoption of what I've been saying: reflect what the better sources uses, and in doubt, use the genderless approach. What I would suspect is that most of the older ship articles aren't going to have newer sourcing that use "it" over "she", and so there's going to be no driver for change there. (There's probably many many more ship articles than crewed space flight ones as well, so we're looking at the disruption factor as a concern too). The idea here is to minimize confusion to the reader reading our article and then the sources. I don't think "crewed" vs "manned" carries that much of an issue they are clearly close synonyms, but "she" vs "it" could. ("Who's "she"? The WP never mentioned any woman involved with this ship..."). --Masem (t) 13:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Thank you to those who replied to me. Unfortunately the root of the claim is till mired in mystery. The only cause resented so far that seems to have any bearing is "political correctness gone mad", although even its support is weak. Personally I suspect it is a case of "the moral majority is actually a very noisy minority", possibly driven by ultra-feminists or SJWs (although I have no proof). From the museum vandalism, "But the museum's surrender to the vandals — whose objection is believed to be linked to some within the LGBTQ community who do not like to be referred to as female, even though they are biologically female — drew widespread condemnation on social media." [81] seems to be a single radical person that brought outrage from large numbers of the public. I remain suspicious of anything being driven by an unknown cause.  Stepho  talk  21:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
      • Had never heard of Sputnik News, that's an interesting Wikipedia article if I've seen one. There's not a specific crusade against this, though - I think it's simple, as professions have become less gendered, we have moved away from language which implies gender. Spokesperson instead of spokesman, crewed instead of manned, flight attendant instead of stewardess, for instance, which, of course, not everyone is happy with, but I consider that respect that labor can be produced by someone of any gender more than "political correctness." I think this is likely the same. SportingFlyer T·C 04:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

We have an article USS Fitzgerald and MV ACX Crystal collision. It addresses a ship collision from 2017. Business Insider writes this article about the collision. In it we find "The containership suffered damage to her bow and port side forward." In it we find "The ACX Crystal had been steaming east (course approximately 090) at about 20 knots from Nagoya when, 15 miles west of Toshima, she turned slightly to port altering to a course northeast (088 degrees) which would have taken it between Oshima to the north and Toshima to the south." In it we find "Then, ACX Crystal altered course, turning hard starboard to nearly a due South heading and after one nautical mile she then turned to port heading east of south for approximately one nautical mile before changing course to a northeast for approximately seven nautical miles heading between Toshima and Oshima before she reversed course and headed back to a point nearly due north and slightly to the west of the collision site." As we can see "she" and "her" are pronouns of reference for ships. Bus stop (talk) 15:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

  • The Business Insider article is not consistent: "On multiple occasions, the Fitzgerald was deployed to the sea around Japan and other areas in response to North Korean ballistic missiles, and it has participated in numerous Japan-US joint training exercises and drills. At the end of April, the ship participated in a training exercise for ballistic missile response with a Japanese Maritime Self Defense Forces Aegis destroyer in the Sea of Japan. At the beginning of June, it participated in a joint training exercise with the Maritime and Air Self-Defense Forces in the area stretching between the Sea of Japan and the waters east of Okinawa." If there's anything everyone seems to agree on, it's that we don't want to mix styles in the same article like this. -- Beland (talk) 16:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
    "from the port of Valdez, Alaska, her belly freshly gorged"
    "Keep her off the rocks, Dad"
    "fifteen knots, her engines were thrown into idle"
    "astern to slow her, says Raymond, is a good command"
    "sending her careering uncontrollably"
    "back to her position, checked the red flashing"
    "the ship during loading, which was fortunate, since she proceeded to leak crude oil"
    Many more can be found. Yes, sometimes "it" is used. But undeniably "she" and "her" constitutes a special-use situation for ships. Bus stop (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, if you're using the fact that an article uses "she" to support a point, the fact that it also uses "it" (which you didn't mention), undermines that point. I don't dispute that "she" for ships is indeed used in the English language. The question is whether the tone that results from that usage is modern, encyclopedic, and unoffensive. Was the Rolling Stone article you are citing written in 1989? That was 30 years ago, and accepted language concerning gender and minorities has changed significantly since then. -- Beland (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is a matter of sexism, although i can see the argument. I just think its culturally bias to use "She". The average reader will call a ship an "it". The idea of calling them "she" is personalized, and i can see that for sailors. I can even see literature using "She" as well because they're probably attempting to add a poetic spin on it. But i don't think it is appropriate for Wikipedia to use that tone.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
    • The average reader will call a ship an "it". The average reader is ignorant of many things. I am ignorant of many things. I don't think it is a good idea for me to put my head in a hole in the ground and block out all that I am ignorant of. Let readers learn that in the English language the terms of reference for ships are "she" and "her". Bus stop (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
      • I understand your argument, but i still believe mine is valid despite your counterpoint.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
        • The evidence does not support your baseless assertion. Calling everyone who disagreees with you ignorant is rude and pretentious, and frankly the only crude behavior I see here. What you learned in grade school is not the be-all, end-all of the English language, and it's rather arrogant of you to assert that it is. oknazevad (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
          • "The evidence does not support your baseless assertion." Concerning language, "evidence" is "usage". If good quality sources currently use "she" and "her", isn't that evidence we should not concoct a rule that obviates the use of "she" and "her"? Bus stop (talk) 16:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
            • Because there are cultural biases that reliable sources can use. What about other reliable sources that are less attached to the culture of ships? How do they address ships? If it was universally referred to as "she" across all cultures, i would accept it. But it's not. Not everyone refers to ships as "she". There is no reason to be inconsistent about how Wikipedia refers to ships. There are cars and airplanes referred to as "she" sometimes too and i dont see them doing the same thing. I just dont agree with the argument that sources choose to refer to ships as "she" as a valid argument. Either we use she or it, but not both. And using it makes more sense, its easier to understand, and the only people upset with it are most likely the ones attached to the culture.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
              • I'm not attached to any culture. I'm attached to the culture of good writing. Replacing she/her with "it" degrades writing/speaking. I completely concede that English is non-gendered concerning inanimate objects—with the exception of ships. Ships get the gendered pronouns "she" and "her". We are not here to right great wrongs, and there is no "wrong" to be "righted". The argument that calling a ship "she" or "her" is sexist is about as silly as anything could be. How could calling a ship "she" or "her" be sexist? The initiative here is political correctness run amok. The language police need to take a break. Language use should be descriptive. Bus stop (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
                • This isn't a political correctness or a sexist issue. Some may see it that way, but i do not. It holds no grounds in this discussion at least to me. However, there are other more legitimate concerns. There is the problem of consistency. Why should we accept "it" and "she" at the same time? It can create a divide for those who are culturally inclined to use "She" over those who aren't. In my opinion, it would be best to use one or the other, but no reason to use both.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
                  • "Why should we accept 'it' and 'she' at the same time?" Well, for the same reason that we accept both "color" and "colour". There is simply no need for pedia-wide consistency on this issue. --Trovatore (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
                    • @Trovatore: The reason is because some articles are predominantly based on British english. It's not the same reason why we accept both. However, jumping from one ship. Although i do believe that every article that uses british english should have a notification at the top saying this article follows british english grammar. But pronouns are not the same as spelling.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
                      • That's an extra reason to accept different English varieties, but I'm not seeing any reason not to accept different pronouns. It's an optional style; Wikipedia has lots of them. For the most part it works fine. There is no value in consistency for its own sake. --Trovatore (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
                        • Others don't see it as an optional style. Others see it as jargon, and unnecessary pronoun that confuses first time readers and only those within the culture will call ships "She/her". Its not the most nuetral term we can use. It makes the most logical sense.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
                          • It's amazing that people aren't permitted to speak plain English anymore. You are rejecting it as jargon and non-neutral. It is the language used by entirely-acceptable sources. Bus stop (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
                            • You're using a logical fallacy by saying "because they speak english, therefore calling ships she is standard english". You have admitted that this can confuse first time readers, you have admitted that the practice of calling it "she" has died down over the course of time. You can't possibly call it plain english if you're admitting to these facts. This is a cultural reason. It's not universal. Its not widely accepted in all english-speaking regions. Maybe the bigger ones like Europe and North America, but does Bahamas, Dominica, Barbados, St. Lucia do this as well? Will we call ships with male names. Its Jargon, plain and simple.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Sigh, not another "but there's an article that uses she!" argument to have to destroy. Per google, "USS Fitzgerald" "its bow": 1,230 results including all major US News orgs, the UK Daily Mail, Bangkok news, a maritime news website, and the Australian Herald Sun; "USS Fitzgerald" "her bow" brings only 365 results, a only a smattering of articles (the Diplomat, the UK Times) and then a bunch of maritime forums and blog posts. SportingFlyer T·C 04:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

There are times, when we can go too far with political correctness. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

There are also times when language that isn't "politically correct" is no longer socially acceptable by the majority of people. (For example, we no longer use the term Negroes, even though that used to be mainstream enough for the United Negro College Fund to adopt.) How would you distinguish one case from the other? -- Beland (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
That argument isn't going to cut, with me. We ain't promoting the usage of terms like "whore", "bitch", etc for ships. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
@GoodDay: Although we're not promoting negative derogatory terms, we are promoting subjectivity. It makes sense for maritime to use "she" over it, as it is their profession to get to know a ship and they may add a female pronoun out of sign of personal affection. The question is: Is Wikipedia Maritime? The answer is no. Just like Wikipedia isn't nerd culture, or democrat, or republican. To be truly neutral, standardization of "it" makes sense. Its what the common person refers to a ship in this modern day, and it's not likely to change, and the term she has been more antiquated over time. We really need to drop the "is this sexist" argument. I understand some may find it offended, but it's just a tangent in the discussion that's causing more divide than necessary.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 18:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
I will not bend to political correctness, which is being pushed by some editors in this discussion. It's unfortunate that they've derailed the purpose of this Rfc. But they have. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
@GoodDay: Yes, some people have voiced their opinion that they personally consider it sexist. There are real objective reasons to use "it" over "she". It will help make Wikipedia more neutral and have a more encyclopedic tone. Again, voting against out of spite isn't the answer.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 20:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
I shall continue to oppose. But, I will accept the results of the Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Any real objective reason why you oppose outside the influence of other editors reasons for support?Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 21:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
I'll continue to oppose, as long as others continue to claim sexism with the usage of "she". Much like Jordan Peterson had no problem using "zhim" or "zher" (and other pronouns) at transgenders request, as long as it wasn't governmentally forced on him. GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
@GoodDay: The problem is that what is considered unacceptable changes over time. How would you determine, for example that "bitch" is still considered by many readers to be an sexist and offensive term, rather than one of affection, as in "Hey, bitches!"? I'm sure we could find at least one person to say they do not find it sexist, and at least one person to say they find it very offensive, so where do we go from there? -- Beland (talk) 04:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
To be concretely realistic, historically there was a gradual shift in acceptability from "Negro" to "Black", with people complaining variously about being offended or about the language being forced to change for no good reason. At some point newspapers and radio and TV and encyclopedias had to decide that a switch was happening and that the time had come to adopt it, and eventually they all did. To put my question another way, how should they make that decision, and how can we make the same decision today? -- Beland (talk) 06:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps topics that include 'gender pronouns', will always be sensitive. GoodDay (talk) 12:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps it is a sensitive subject, but i disagree that in this scenario is because we're living in a world of post-modernists. I genuinely believe in this case that "she" is antiquated and no longer within standard in modern english. Some maritime sources may choose to use it as their standard, but they don't represent the common english reader.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 15:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
@GoodDay: Sure, any topic that has anything to do with any group identity is sensitive, but that doesn't really answer the question of how to decide what usages are acceptable for a given publication's audience. -- Beland (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Publicly stated reasons for calling ships "she"
  • Found an interesting quote from Legion Magazine: For better or worse, the wardrooms of many a U.S. Navy vessel long carried a plaque declaring the following:
    "A ship is called a she because there is always a great deal of bustle around her; there is usually a gang of men about; she has a waist and stays; it takes a lot of paint to keep her good-looking; it is not the initial expense that breaks you, it is the upkeep; she can be all decked out; it takes an experienced man to handle her correctly; and without a man at the helm, she is absolutely uncontrollable. She shows her topsides, hides her bottom and, when coming into port, always heads for the buoys."     Yup, definitely a tradition worth perpetuating here on Wikipedia. CThomas3 (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
    Cthomas3—one problem is that we are discussing this in the abstract, entirely separate from actual examples of usage. Please link to a source that uses "she" or "her" in relation to ships in a way that you feel is sexist—and then we can discuss it. Let us examine examples of actual usage. I haven't seen any actual usages in reliable sources of "she" or "her" in relation to ships that is sexist. But if you know of some instances—please bring them to our attention. Bus stop (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
    Greetings Bus stop. I must disagree with your premise that the problem is talking in the abstract. On the contrary, I would say that the problem in the abstract seems to be precisely what these many publications and style guides are claiming to be sexist and offensive. They aren't calling out individual "egregious examples", they are saying that the practice as a whole is the problem. I'm not sure that discussing any individual case is going to have any more probative value than we have already gotten from the dozens of examples we've seen already.
    Out of curiosity, is your plan to debate each individual instance and attempt to determine whether or not it, by itself, is offensive? What evidence are you planning to provide other than the fact that it doesn't offend you personally? You've made that point very clear already, so no need to further state that particular case. CThomas3 (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
    Greetings Cthomas3—please provide what you consider to be an instance of sexism in the use of a feminine pronoun in relation to ships. We don't have to unthinkingly accept anyone else's opinion. This is Wikipedia. We are supposed to be intelligent people. We should be able to evaluate a source to see if an aspect of it is in any way sexist. You are referring to "publications and style guides". Great. That's fine. But those publications and style guides are referring to reality—are they not? Let us look at and examine and discuss reality. I'm not comfortable jumping on a bandwagon. You say "They aren't calling out individual egregious examples". Shouldn't that raise red flags for you? Why are no examples provided? Perhaps because no examples exist? And by the way, an example need not be an "egregious" example. Please show me any use of "she" and "her" in relation to ships that is even slightly sexist. There is no reason that I know of that this discussion has to take place in the abstract and in the absence of any concrete examples. Bus stop (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
    I don't know if this is what you're looking for, but I googled Why are ships called she and found many examples that I found quite sexist. In a .pdf document titled "10 Reasons to Classify Ship as Feminine" from a website for Maritime Training Center I found: "9. Costly to maintain: The running costs of a ship are mostly high like a woman who goes on a spending fee or shopping." At "Densa Tankers", an international ship management and chartering company, I found what looks like a whole poem:

There is always a great deal of bustle around her; There is usually a gang of men around her; She has a aist and stays; Her rigging cost's more than her hull; It takes a lot of paint to keep her looking good; It is not the initial expense that breaks you, It's the upkeep; She can be all decked out; It takes an xperiencedman to handle her correctly; And without a man at the helm, She is absolutly uncontrollable; She has her topsides, hides her bottom and, When coming into port, She always heads for the boys.

And another one just below that one:

We always call a ship a "she" and not without a reason. For she displays a well-shaped knee regardless of the season. She scorns the man whose heart is faint and doesn't show him pity. And like a girl she needs the paint to keep her looking pretty. For love she'll brace the ocean vast, be she a gig or cruiser. But if you fail to tie her fast you're almost sure to lose her. On ships and dames we pin our hopes, we fondle them and dandle them. And every man must know his ropes or else he cannot handle them. Be firm with her and she'll behave when skies are dark above you. And let her take a water wave - praise her, and she'll love you. That's why a ship must have a mate; she needs a good provider. A good strong arm to keep her straight, to comfort her and guide her. For such she'll brace the roughest gales and angry seas that crowd her And in a brand new suit of sails no dame looks any prouder. The ship is like a dame in that she's feminine and swanky; You'll find the one that's broad and fat is never mean and cranky. Yes ships are ladylike indeed, for take them all together the ones that show a lot of speed can't stand the roughest weather.

There they are. El Millo (talk) 02:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I also did some googlin'. The quote Cthomas posted is widespread, both as a tea towel [82] [83] [84] [85] [86], and in many other forms: [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94]. This has been discussed many times on Wikipedia over the years: [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] and that's not even counting the discussions linked to at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive (ships as "she"). Here are some other wonderful examples of the answer to Why are ships called 'she'?:

  • 1897 book: Because they always keep a man on the look out.
  • 1940 U.S. Admiral Chester W. Nimitz: A ship is always referred to as "she" because it costs so much to keep her in paint and powder.
  • 1998 US Naval Institute Admiral Foley: Ships are referred to as "she" because men love them, but this encompasses far more than just that. Man-o'-war or merchantman, there can be a great deal of bustle about her as well as a gang of men on deck, particularly if she is slim-waisted, well-stacked, and has an inviting superstructure. It is not so much her initial cost as it is her upkeep that makes you wonder where you founder. She is greatly admired when freshly painted and all decked out to emphasize her cardinal points.
  • 2014 newspaper article Like a woman, a ship is unpredictable.
  • Undated: Looks beautiful...Behaves like a woman: If you look after her, she will take care of you. If not, she will ditch you. You have to love her or she will make you suffer. During the good old days, when mariners were only men, she was their pretty woman...Seen as Goddesses and Angels...Hard taskmaster...Costly to maintain...[and more]
  • Undated: Men love them... Sailors of the past dedicated ships to goddesses and mother figures who play a protective role for the ship... Boats are likened to mothers... Boats are high-maintenance... [and more] – Levivich 02:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
The topic of discussion is Why some people consider it sexist. Therefore why are Levivich and Cthomas3 so intent on inserting a sub-header implying a different topic? Bus stop (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't think either of us in disagreement. That's why we both made it a subheader under WT:MOS#Why some people consider it sexist. We're still in the same general discussion, but the subheader provides a) specificity, and b) easier navigation. CThomas3 (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
BS, you asked Please link to a source that uses "she" or "her" in relation to ships in a way that you feel is sexist—and then we can discuss it. This subsection contains links to sources that use "she" or "her" in relation to ships in a way that some feel is sexist, per your request. In order to make sure we avoid implying a different topic, we can change the subsection header to #Links to sources that use "she" or "her" in relation to ships in a way that some feel is sexist, although someone might want something shorter. – Levivich 03:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@Bus stop: Sometimes it's not clear that something is offensive on its face, but must be read in social context. For example, some people who are vigorously opposed to President Donald Trump refer to him as "45". This is based on the objectively true fact that he is the 45th President of the United States, and there's nothing negative about that fact. But it is still profoundly and intentionally insulting, on the theory that it denied Trump the pleasure of hearing or seeing his own name, which is apparently a thing he very much likes. -- Beland (talk) 04:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Is there always going to be somebody offended by something, these days? GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and there will always be someone to say that the people who are offended are over-reacting. The relevant question for publications with diverse audiences is not so much about people at either ends of the sensitivity spectrum, but the great middle. -- Beland (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
And it's not really about offence, but about getting the proper neutral encyclopedic tone. A word which offends a significant minority, is only beloved by old-fashioned specialists, and which can be replaced by a synonym which most sources use; surely it's a no-brainer? --The Huhsz (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Surely it's clear that all these passages giving "reasons" are attempts at humor? I mean, they're not really very funny, but no one should mistake them for serious explanations of the traditional pronouns. --Trovatore (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

We need to drop the "sexist" angle

I think this debate isn't beneficial at all, in fact it waters down all the other valid reasons why we should standardize to use "it" over "she". Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 21:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Harping on whether or not voters are motivated by a desire to be "woke" or whatever is just a strawman. At a quick glance, of the 35 or so support votes, I only saw 13 that mentioned sexism in any way (and in most of those cases, it wasn't the primary argument). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
But some paranoid opposers main argument is currently to spite those supporters and think there is some political agenda attached to all this. I know this discussion isn't supposed to be treated as a vote and have the argument speak for itself, but i can't help but have it play as a factor. Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 21:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
And the closer of the RFC will (ideally) dismiss those oppose !votes as being little more than trolling and contributing nothing to the discussion. There's a reason it's a "!vote" not a "vote", and that is there is supposed to be a rationale for them. Merely whining like a petulant child is not a rationale worth considering.
Plus I don't think we should drop the angle. Frankly, there's tons of good reasons to join modern predominant English usage and use "it" for ships (not the least of which is that it is the predominant modern usage as seen by the style guides and ngrams already in evidence here), but the fact (not perception, but fact) that the practice has at least some sexist stereotypes behind its origins is just a valid reason to drop it as any.
But again, just because some whiners oppose because of their affinity for shitty human beings like Jordan Petersen (like, seriously, could you pick a more vile role model?) doesn't mean we have to give them any attention other than telling them their petulance is noted and dismissed. We're not trying to convince them; they're already lost fools. oknazevad (talk) 08:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Oknazevad—although you spelled Jordan Peterson's name incorrectly, please remove the above WP:BLP violation per WP:BLPTALK. Bus stop (talk) 15:22, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Expressing my personal opinion is not a violation of WP:BLPTALK. oknazevad (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
You are concerned that ships might be referred to as "she" or "her" but you are unconcerned that a human being would be referred to as a "shitty human being"? Bus stop (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Yeah. One is grammatically correct and potentially offensive towards one person; the other is grammatically incorrect and potentially offensive towards billions. – Levivich 17:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
He is concerned that ships might be referred to as "she" or "her" in the context of the encyclopedia, not in a discussion. C'mon Bus stop, I think you're just nitpicking and talking about details instead of about the issue. El Millo (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm willing to bring Bus stop to WP:ANI if this continues.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 17:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Hopefully the bludgeoning stops and that can be avoided. It was just a few months ago that Bus stop was TBanned from AN and ANI for bludgeoning [101], but the history goes back over 12 years [102]. – Levivich 17:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
@Oknazevad: I sympathize with those who think that's a valid reason. But the sexist angle is causing people to treat the subject like there's a political agenda involved. There are more obvious and objective reasons to to standardize the use of "it" that the opposers have not even attempted to provide a counterpoint. In fact, they opt out to "I didn't hear that".Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 15:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
But that's my point. People objecting just for the sake of objecting without addressing all the issues are jut contributing to the discussion, just acting petulantly. oknazevad (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that what Blue Pumpkin Pie is trying to say is that those petulant acts of some users could be avoided if we just dropped the sexist angle. El Millo (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
And I think that avoiding the facts that some consider it sexist based on historical references (already seen in the discussion here) is a disservice to the factual basis of the arguments. oknazevad (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I see it the other way around. The sexist based discussion is a disservice to the other more objective reasons not to use it. It's your choice OKnazevad. You can help this discussion move forward by focusing on the facts that the opposers to this very moment have not been able to refute, or you can continue to allow the opposers to use that angle to derail the conversation. Do you have faith this will end in Wikipedia's favor if you continue to use that aspect? In reality, it doesn't matter if some consider it offensive. We use what the standard and most common terminology in english. There will always be something that offends someone, but this is the one chance where the objective facts actually support us, and we're under-utilizing them for more subjective points.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 15:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Consensus

This discussion has strong advocates on both sides and, I venture to suggest, will not achieve consensus in any reasonable time frame. Without consensus the changes proposed cannot be made. Is it possible for both sides to WP:DROPTHESTICK and leave the discussion for a couple of years? Perhaps slate a second round for November 2021? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

What an appalling idea, return to this drivel in two years. Ridiculous arguments here, how can it possibly be sexist to name some beautiful object she when men are not complaining about it. The world sits back slack jawed at us embarrassing ourselves. Broichmore (talk) 05:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
It's polling 2:1 in favor of "it" right now. I'm counting 20 !votes for "it" and 10 !votes for "she". – Levivich 15:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I also think its worth looking into the quality of the argument.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
If you consider the quality of the argument, it's 20-0. Good thing we have uninvolved editors close discussions instead of participants, eh? – Levivich 15:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
What a truly arrogant statement. What you're basically saying is because some sources use and advocate "it" and some people have decided (without much apparent basis in the real world, I might add - some people will take offence at anything) that it's sexist, Wikipedia should be railroading all editors into using "it" on all articles, even though many sources still use "she". That's not how Wikipedia works. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Some people will take offence at anything, some even mistake a joke for a truly arrogant statement. – Levivich 20:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
No, I get it was light-hearted, but given your previous comments it's obviously clear that you think we should lay down some law that says we should always use "it" and that you think arguments against are invalid. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Please all read WP:NOTDEM. !votes don't count. The last three edits show that consensus has not been obtained, and is unlikely to be obtained. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)C

I disagree with how you interpret consensus. This is a relatively recent discussion. Just three days ago. I dont think it is wise to just assume there is no consensus and wait a year. There's plenty of time for more editors to get involved.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree, particularly where new voters are still weighing in regularly, and discussion is ongoing, with people posting sources for review, N-grams, and so on. Aside from there being plenty of time for more editors to get involved, it is also quite possible that some editors may change their !votes after seeing other editors' new evidence. In my view, it's much too soon to call it and declare a moratorium. – Levivich 20:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm curious if we'd be able to form consensus around a new compromise, since usage of "it" in non-specialist sources seems to be nearly universal in American English, but mixed in the UK where prominent sources like the BBC still use "she". I've proposed a change to something like '"it" in articles written in American English, either "she" or "it" in other varieties of English', but we could also consider something like 'status quo until the BBC stops using "she"', which I find a compelling counterargument to my original proposal. -- Beland (talk) 21:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Interestingly, the online BBC News style guide (last updated July 2013) says very emphatically: Ships should not be treated as feminine (eg: A US aircraft-carrier has disappeared in the Atlantic. It was carrying 400 men - and not "She was carrying..."). (emphasis in original). CThomas3 (talk) 01:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Even more interestingly, so does the Guardian, the Telegraph, and Reuters. The Economist as of 2015 does still list ships as an exception to using gender-neutral pronouns for things other than people. I couldn't access the Financial Times style guide online. CThomas3 (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I would like to add a little more commentary concerning The Economist:
"he, she, they"
"You also have a duty to grammar. The struggle to be gender-neutral rests on a misconception about gender, a grammatical convention to make words masculine, feminine or neuter. Since English is unusual in assigning few genders to nouns other than those relating to people (ships are exceptions), feminists have come to argue that language should be gender-neutral."
The Economist is clear. This is a question of grammar. English does not assign gender except in the case of ships. And The Economist, it goes without saying, is the most erudite of the above publications. The bold above was added by me.
Quite simply, Wikipedia shouldn't be trying to steer the English language. That is not at all the purpose of Wikipedia. Arguably the opposite is our purpose—to expose the reader to the language as it is. The Economist recognizes in its style guide that "feminists" have come to argue that language should be gender-neutral. But their style guide is steadfast that ships are an exception. Correct grammar maintains that ships use gendered pronouns. Bus stop (talk) 05:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I would like to thank Cthomas3 for pointing out that "The Economist as of 2015 does still list ships as an exception to using gender-neutral pronouns for things other than people." Bus stop (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
As pointed out below, The Economist writes "ship and its", not "ship and her", regardless of its style guide. Doremo (talk) 10:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Doremo—you are mistaken. If you follow through to the articles that your search turns up you will find many instances of ships referred to as she/her/hers. Your error is in searching for "ship and its". An Economist article can contain "ship and its" and still refer to the ship as she/her/hers. In other words The Economist does not even require internal (within one article) consistency. The topmost example returned by google using your search for "ship and its" is "The battle for Colombia’s sunken treasure". As expected we find within it "He promised to recover the ship and its contents, worth as much as $17bn, and build a museum in Cartagena to house them." But we also find "She never reached her destination: in June that year she was sunk by a squadron of British ships. For more than three centuries her final resting place remained a mystery." Our present policy is already too strict on this point because our present policy prohibits internal inconsistency. Our policy really should be saying "feel free to use she/her/hers or it/its anywhere that pleases you—because it doesn't matter; it is really no big deal." Instead our policy says Ships may be referred to using either feminine forms ("she", "her", "hers") or neuter forms ("it", "its"). Either usage is acceptable, but each article should be internally consistent and employ one or the other exclusively. If we follow the example set by The Economist we can remove the language "each article should be internally consistent and employ one or the other exclusively." Bus stop (talk) 14:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out the inconsistency at The Economist. I can only compare one phrase at a time; in the case of the easily searchable "ship and its/her", "it" is clearly dominant in The Economist (apparent ratio 954:2). Individual instances don't indicate a trend. For the phrase "it/she was sunk by" the apparent ratio is 172:3 at The Economist site. The point here is that invoking usage in The Economist tends to support it rather than she—not that it is the exclusive usage. Doremo (talk) 14:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Doremo—"inconsistency" is a plus. There is no need for consistency. You are pointing out that The Economist uses "ship and its". But in the same Economist article in which we find "ship and its" we also find the ship referred to as "she" and "her" and "hers". The bottom line is that our discussion is pure drivel. It doesn't matter. Why agonize over something that is completely inconsequential? Bus stop (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Inconsistency is not a plus. Many consider it a minus in this case. Using she or it can affect the tone of the article, and i dont think inconsistent tone is good. Lets not try to devalue another person's argument by asking "Why agonize over something that is completely inconsequential?" because that question can be used in favor of "it" as well.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Blue Pumpkin Pie—you write "Using she or it can affect the tone of the article, and i dont think inconsistent tone is good." Inconsistent tone? Can you please provide an example of "inconsistent tone"? Wouldn't "tone" be determined by the information that needs to be conveyed? Bus stop (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Tone is determined by the editor and what information they want to convey. Whether it needs to be conveyed is the question.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
You are writing "Using she or it can affect the tone of the article, and i dont think inconsistent tone is good." Can you please provide an example of "inconsistent tone"? Bus stop (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Inconsistent tone between articles, not within a single article. But just to provide an example: Seawise Giant and RMS Titanic. The fact that a japanese ship is referred to as it and a western ship is referred as she further supports the idea that this isn't a standard practice universally, but between specific. It is commonly accepted, but it not the standard. And that's what important. Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Concerning Seawise Giant and RMS Titanic, is there anything wrong with either article vis-à-vis the use of pronouns for ships? I don't think anything is wrong at either article vis-à-vis the use of pronouns for ships—but maybe I'm overlooking something. Can you please point to the specific problem? Bus stop (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Well it goes back with how confusing it can be to first time readers. RMS Titanic for example, has usage of "it" and "she". It may be true that "it" may not be referring to the Titanic, but it is still confusing to what it is referring to. The problem with using "she" for inanimate objects still creates problems in the text. Is it appropriate to call it "the ship" and "she" in the same article? Or by name instead of "the ship". Again, to first time readers, it will look like Wikipedia is attempting to personalize the ship, and although sources may choose to do that, it may not be necessary for Wikipedia to do so.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to call it "the ship" and "she" in the same article? Yes. "She" is as grammatically correct as "it" in reference to ships. As for "first time readers"—certainly they will have difficulty—that is part of the learning process. We should not shield readers from these basic speech variations in regard to the pronouns used to reference ships. Bus stop (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Is referring to "the ship" the same as calling it "It"? Thats the question i'm imposing. Again, for first time readers this can be difficult to understand, and i'm in the first belief that Wikipedia is there to inform, not educate. I'm not saying we should shield readers. I just think we should be more consistent about it. And yes, i'm in the firm belief that this is beneficial to Wikipedia by having a consistent tone. I do not believe that using "she" helps keeping the encyclopedic tone.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not need to decide on ways of speaking as long as those ways of speaking fall within the realm of general acceptability. How difficult would it be for a first time reader to grasp that the female pronoun is being used for the ship they are reading about? Wouldn't a first time reader simply google "ship gender" for more information on this? Bus stop (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
There's no point discussing this further now is there? We stated everything we could possibly state. I'm choosing to drop the stick, at least with you. I may choose to speak with others about it, if i believe it is beneficial to clarify.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I predict that Bus stop, with his snobbish, dismissive bludgeoning of this discussion, is going to single-handedly drive the outcome from the status quo of either-with-consistency to it-only. EEng 18:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Vintage cars and planes are also commonly call she, as is any piece of bespoke made equipment, usually lovingly tended. Broichmore (talk) 10:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Colloquially, yes, but I haven't seen it done in formal or encyclopedic writing. And in fact, cars are often referred to as "he", especially in the Midwest, according to a recent study by Shell [103]. CThomas3 (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • On the subject of consensus, and regarding the comment that's been made by several editors, that 'we've been over this many times before, seemingly every year or so': I'd have thought that repeated discussions resulting in 'no consensus to change' would be a good indication it's time to walk away from the idea. Consensus isn't democracy, where 51% is a majority, and a 2% shift of opinion can change everything; For a consensus you need just about everyone, particularly those most involved, to agree: A proposal that commands a consensus isn't going to involve four weeks of argument, over 600Kb of text. And WP operates on consensus for good reasons, to avoid disruption, and time-wasting debate on whether something is OK or not. Discussion on this issue has already led to a compromise ( which is not 'a pseudo-rule calling for 'she', as claimed) which is acceptable to most people involved, so maybe it's time to drop the stick and get on with the work in hand.
Regarding the repeated 2 to 1 ratio favouring 'it' over 'she', a 2 to 1 majority isn't a consensus either, it's just a bigger democratic mandate. My constituency MP was elected with a 2 to 1 majority last week, and I doubt there is a consensus here on anything he stands for. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Xyl 54, a couple of points which you make which I don't think you've adequately thought through or evidenced;
For a consensus you need just about everyone, particularly those most involved, to agree: (my emphasis) No, you don't. See WP:CONSENSUS; it's generally taken as the reading of the argument by an experienced and uninvolved person, taking into account the arguments made, rather than just counting heads. See also WP:NOTVOTE.
[WP:SHE4SHIPS] ... is not 'a pseudo-rule calling for 'she', as claimed) which is acceptable to most people involved Actually, it is de facto exactly that, a pseudo-rule calling for 'she'. If you wish to dispute this, please provide a list of articles on ships which use "it"; my impression is that about 99% of ship articles follow the existing pseudo-rule to follow the obsolescent and pretentious usage of "she". And no, I think this discussion is evidence that the current guidance is not fit for purpose in the modern age, as more have supported the proposal than opposed it, and the arguments they have provided are generally factual and evidence-based, rather than those of "she" supporters which seem more feelings- or dogma-based.
SandyGeorgia provided us with a very interesting pair of examples of ship articles written without pronouns. While I think this looks a little tortured, it is certainly possible that if this proposal fails on this attempt, we could compromise by enjoining writers to reduce the plodding use of "she, "she", "her" "she" on almost every ship article, which is ugly and leaden I imagine even to the "she" enthusiasts of the community. Such writing should certainly not be seen on featured content, as it sadly is at present. --The Huhsz (talk) 16:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
I provided my exact reasons as why this guideline should not be changed when I replied to your comment. Instead of trying to engage my arguements come to some kind of a conclusion you disregard them as "dogmatic". I have provided adequate evidence as to why "she" is still in English usage yet no response. I seriously do not see the point of trying to have a discussion with proposers when they constantly slam your arguments without even considering them.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 17:49, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
You did, and I saw what you wrote. But what you are missing is that showing that "she" is still in English usage is not really germane to our discussion. Ain't, cunt and nigger are all still very much in English usage last I noticed, but WP:NOTCENSORED notwithstanding, we tend to avoid their use when writing encyclopedia articles, other than in quotations, as we prefer more modern, plainer, objective, formal language. To change my mind, you would have to show that "she" predominates in modern sources and style guides (it does not) or that "she" confers some measurable advantage to the reader (it does not). So this is dogma, with an irrelevant non-argument tacked onto the end. Sorry. --The Huhsz (talk) 17:57, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
You are entirely misrepresenting my argument. I am going to paste my original comment here again: Firstly, It is clear that "she" is still has common usage as the sources above show. Secondly stating it is "flowery and poetic" is simply an opinion with no evidence to demonstrate it. That seems like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument since anyone could say that about anything. Thirdly, "some people find it sexist" this is really a poor arguement to make. I am not going to make a 500 word essay on way it is not sexist to call a ship "she" but that is entirely false. Anyway, if someone found the article Sister city sexist since it is not gender-neutral should we change it? No because sister city is used in a variety of sources just becuase someone may find something sexist there is no grounds to overturn a guideline. Changing all ship pronouns to "it" instead of "she" would also violate WP:ENGVAR since the English Wikipedia does not prefer national varieties of English over any other as it is evident that British/Commonwealth English prefers "she" over "it". Also if you keep on insulting my arguments I am not going to respond again per WP:UNCIVIL.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 18:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, it's clear that we are talking past each other at this point. Absolutely fine with me if you refrain from adding any more verbiage, especially when it's a repost that we've already read and falsified. Maybe if you learned the difference between falsifying an argument and an insult, we'd be able to communicate better next time. Never mind. Enjoy the holiday. --The Huhsz (talk) 19:00, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, "Ain't, cunt and nigger" may be used in English usage but they are not used in Recent Reliable Sources. Try finding recent reliable sources using those words outside of quotes. Refering to ships as "she" has been used by Recent Reliable Sources by: The Times, The Guardian, The Telegraph, Business Insider, The Royal Navy, BBC News, ITV News, The Ministry of Defence, The Royal Australian Navy, The Port of London Authority, The Scottish Government, The Economist, US Navy, Government of Western Australia, Practical Boat Owner, etc. These mostly being British publications it would be violation of WP:ENGVAR to mandate all ship articles to use "she" over "it" as it is clear British English favours "she" over "it".  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 15:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
@Spy-cicle: maybe because WPLENGVAR doesn't go in full detail and is a bit vague. But in my opinion, WP:ENGVAR only works if the terms are equally interchangeable. Color/Colour, Favorite/Favourite, Centre/Center etc. But it and she are not interchangeable 100%. Even if you are able to prove that British regions choose to use "She" more commonly, i still argue that its just a preference for WP:JARGON on their behalf. Also per WP:COMMONALITY, "it" is universal accepted for ships than with "She". It may go against mariner tradition and some may be angry about not following that tradition, but it can't be argued with a pure objective perspective. Also, at this time, there are no rules in place to use "She" for british or European ships, so even if what you said is true, we should still look for standardization.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 15:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
It is clear I am not going to change your mind based on WP:ENGVAR and that is fine you have your view. But even taking WP:ENGVAR aside, the points made by proposers still to not warrant it being changed. "She" for ships sounds "old-fashioned" some say it is old-fashioned but the OED begs to differ. Either way that is simply an opinion. "quaint or poetic" that is yet another opinion from a blog no less. Someone could say "it" is cold and uninteresting and that is simply an opinion and has no merit when deciding Wikipedia's MoS". I have already gone through the usage of she in reliable sources. ""She" for ships is confusing, especially for readers with English as a second language". By that same logic, we should not use words like "seldom" since it may confuse readers with English as a second language, etc.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
I believe Blue Pumpkin Sky has got this one right, and don't think Spy-cicle's application of ENGVAR based on sourcing is indicative of a position Wikipedia should take. In terms of Manual of Style, for example, in Britain, Tourette syndrome is commonly called GTS (Gilles de la Tourette syndrome), and one can produce scores of sources using that term. Wikipedia is able to employ its own criteria for terminology, which may not agree with regional uses. We could apply the same argument on WP:ENDASH or WP:EMDASH formatting; we can produce scores of sources that do one or the other, but Wikipedia can choose its own house style on such matters. I don't see a convincing argument that we have to use "she" because British sources that follow that ancient tradition are still doing so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
The Huhsz—you are misconstruing the discussion by referencing "she enthusiasts". I don't think anyone is a "she enthusiast". No one has implied that they are a "she enthusiast". The discussion is about mandated language versus free rein in the usage of validly available language. I know I favor allowing editorial discretion in this area. Bus stop (talk) 17:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Fair point. However, we have a Manual of Style not in order to "mandate" language (your word) but to recommend language. There will always be room for an occasional WP:IAR moment and of course it will always still be ok in quotations. In practice, allowing editorial discretion in this area equates to having almost all ship articles not just use the obsolescent flowery pronoun, but to leadenly, tediously overuse it. This is why I have formed the opinion that there are those who really, really like it, as witness some of the illogical passion of its supporters in this discussion. Here's an amusing example, very easily found:

Despite the many British warships and several convoys in the area, at least 104 units were identified on the 29th by the ship's radio crew, Prinz Eugen reached the Bay of Biscay undiscovered, and on 1 June the ship was joined by German destroyers and aircraft off the coast of France south of Brest; and escorted to Brest, which she reached late on 1 June where she immediately entered dock. (my emphasis)

Do you see anything wrong with that? --The Huhsz (talk) 18:06, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
You say the language is "ugly and leaden I imagine even to the 'she' enthusiasts of the community". Two points—I am not a "she enthusiast" and I don't find the language "ugly and leaden". Bus stop (talk) 18:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Great to have your answer. No further questions from me. If you can't see anything wrong with the last bit of that extract there is no point discussing the finer points of language with you. Enjoy the holidays. --The Huhsz (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
The best part is the use of the elegant variation the ship ("Prinz Eugen reached the Bay of Biscay undiscovered, and on 1 June the ship was joined by German destroyers") as a way, one gathers, of avoiding the laughable "Prinz Eugen reached the Bay of Biscay undiscovered, and on 1 June she was joined by German destroyers". (I sense a Brest joke in here as well, but it's not quite gelling.) EEng 18:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
The Huhsz—it is not a question of "the last bit of that extract". Bad writing cannot be totally eliminated by a manual of style. If that writing needs revision then someone has to do that. Happy holidays! Bus stop (talk) 18:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Retain current guidance

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closing this redundant !voting section again, per WP:MULTI and WP:TALKFORK. If you want to retain the current guidance, just say so in the RfC above. If you don't, then say what you'd prefer in the RfC above.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Much of the above discussion presents the debate as being either always “it” OR always “she”... but our current guidance is actually more flexible. BOTH are allowed (although not in the same article). I would like to know how many people support this current guidance. How many are willing to continue to be flexible? Blueboar (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose I personally think it's time we moved forward with "it" across the board for ships, with the exception of direct quotes. CThomas3 (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • My opposition to the change was implicitly a !vote in favor of the current guidance. I don't think anyone has proposed that we start recommending she as a uniform rule. I agree it's possible that that's not clearly understood by some of the participants, though. --Trovatore (talk) 21:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'd like to see the guidance at least reflect differences in American vs. UK English, and possibly civilian vs. military if that turns out to be consistent. -- Beland (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I think it's quite obvious that I and others are opposed to current guidance; the opening statement makes clear exactly what guidelines will be changed with links, so any person doing their due diligence will be aware of what current guidance is. I believe SMcCandlish's notice on the Village Pump also contains (or in a comment below? I can't remember or be bothered to check) mentions what the current guidance is. I think this is something that does not need its own section to resolve and that an experienced closer will be able to assess consensus for existing guidelines from the above discussion without splitting the discussion. (edit conflict) Wug·a·po·des​ 21:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I vote to close this since its redundant and only focus on the discussion above.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose and agree with Blue Pumpkin Pie above. – Levivich 22:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Why is there a second poll? It confuses the issue and makes it more difficult for the closer to determine consensus. If the above proposal doesn't gain consensus to change the guidance, then by default the current guidance remains. There is zero reason to expliciltly propose such a course. Plainly put, this section is pointless and unneeded. oknazevad (talk) 22:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose current guidance Ships and boats should always be she, and the use of it ought to be corrected on first sight. That's my opinion, but in the interest of harmony I'll accept the current guidance and tolerate the it adherents. The question though is whether those seeking to change the use of English for political reasons are prepared to similarly compromise? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think its for political reasons. I think it was a bad way to start to calling it sexist (we can't change history). There are plenty of reasons outside of political reasons. And Although i disagree that "she" should be used, i at least admire that you want more consistency, not less.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose current guidance because (as Masem put it so well) Using gendered pronouns for inanimate objects is metaphorical or poetic and has no place in an encyclopaedia. I think we'll need an RfC. EEng 03:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose current guidance per EEng and my vote in the RfC above. Grammar should not be discretionary where no conflict exists. I also agree with Blue Pumpkin Pie, this is functionally a duplicate discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 04:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • We don't need a rule about this. Wikipedia is not required to be consistent. Please stop expanding the manual of style in this and every other respect because, firstly, I don't wish to have to watchlist MOS subpages in order to stop editors fucking up carefully-written content by using AWB at several thousand edits per hour, and secondly, a key thing that Wikipedia needs to reduce is the amount of people who think their role is to manage how other people can write.—S Marshall T/C 02:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support current guidance. Many variations exist of English, BC/AD vs BCE/CE, and many more. There isn't a need to force a pronoun for all of Wikipedia. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 23:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support current guidance. No reader is going to be that offended or surprised whichever version they encounter. We can safely let the authors of articles decide which they prefer; they have earned that right. Jmchutchinson (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Just a gentle reminder that no one owns an article.--WaltCip (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I think they mean that the creator generally determines what form of English is used, unless consensus emerges later to change that. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 23:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
    Except that isn't true. Please re-read MOS:ENGVAR and MOS:RETAIN. The choice between one major national variety of English (e.g. US, Canadian, British, New Zealand, etc.) is considered to be set at the first non-stub version of an article, and shouldn't be changed without good reason, which should be discussed on the talk page. If consensus cannot emerge from that process, then default back to what was chosen in the first non-stub version. Nothing about that suggests that whoever created the first non-stub version (much less the first stub) has more say than anyone else going forward (no one is a WP:VESTED editor, and no one can become one be misrepresenting a guideline, per WP:OWN policy). The process same goes for MOS:DATEVAR and WP:CITEVAR. And where the choice between one style matter and another (outside of ENGVAR, DATEVAR, CITEVAR issues) is simply arbitrary and either version is equivalent, don't change it just to change it (per MOS:RETAIN). In practice, not that many cases actually are arbitrary and equivalent, or most of our copyediting wouldn't be possible, especially at the GAN and FAC level after an article has already been shaped a lot.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
I think when Jmchutchinson says "they have earned that right", Jmchutchinson is simply referencing normal editorial discretion in how one expresses oneself. This is no big deal. We can express ourselves in a multitude of ways. As editors we are always weighing the pros and cons of expressing an idea one way or another way. Bus stop (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of style guides

This list is incomplete. You can help by expanding it. Please feel free to add to/edit the list below. – Levivich 05:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
"it" - general audience
The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage (1999) [104]
BBC News (2013) [105]
The Guardian (2015) [106]
AP Stylebook (2016) [107]
The Chicago Manual of Style (2017) [108]
Reuters (2017) [109]
The Daily Telegraph (2018) [110]
National Public Radio (2019) [111]
Medical Library Association (2019) [112]
Government of Tasmania (2012) [113]
The Canadian Press (unknown, per [114])
"it" - specialty
Lloyd's List (2002) [115]
US Coast Guard (2009) [116]
"she" - general audience
The Economist (2015) [117]
Note: The Economist consistently writes "ship and its"; the construction "ship and her" appears in only two reader comments at the site. Doremo (talk) 06:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Incorrect, Doremo. You are searching for "ship and its". But The Economist writes articles containing "ship and its" and also refers in the same article to the ship as she/her/hers. The Economist is not requiring internal consistency—and why should they? The Economist aims for intelligibility, not punctilious observance of questionable rules. We should post this at our figurative door: "Welcome to Wikipedia, home of rule-mongering!" Bus stop (talk) 14:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
🙄  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
As already stated above, in the case of the easily searchable "ship and its/her", "it" is clearly dominant in The Economist (apparent ratio 954:2). Individual instances don't indicate a trend. For the phrase "it/she was sunk by" the apparent ratio is 172:3 at The Economist site. The point here is that invoking usage in The Economist tends to support it rather than she—not that it is the exclusive usage. Doremo (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Based on this archive.org link, the version using "she" dates at least as far back as December 2016, while the version using "its" is dated March 22, 2017. My thinking is that the version recommending "she" is probably a previous / older version of the style guide, although further investigation might be needed to definitively prove it. Master of Time (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Master of Time—the style guide you are linking to says "her, she - Appropriate pronoun when referring to a ship." Therefore, according to the "U.S. Navy Style Guide", "her" and "she" are the appropriate pronouns when referring to ships. Bus stop (talk) 21:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
@Bus stop: I am confused as to how and why you referenced the (probably old) doc version while ignoring the version that does uses "it/its" throughout. Were you keeping track of the discussion? Perhaps reread it starting with Doremo's 27 November 2019 06:06 UTC comment. Master of Time (talk) 22:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
@Master of Time: The Economist writes in 2015 "You also have a duty to grammar. The struggle to be gender-neutral rests on a misconception about gender, a grammatical convention to make words masculine, feminine or neuter. Since English is unusual in assigning few genders to nouns other than those relating to people (ships are exceptions), feminists have come to argue that language should be gender-neutral." If you are trying to call my attention to something else could you please just link to it and/or quote from it? Bus stop (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
@Bus stop: Naw, I'm just an idiot and posted my original reply in the wrong location. Master of Time (talk) 03:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
"she" - specialty
US Navy Style Guide.doc (unclear date), implicitly contradicted by 2017 version which does not mention her/she [118] - this includes the AP Stylebook by reference, which advises against her/she for ships.
Not just implicitly contradicts it by referencing the AP style guide, it outright uses "it" in the entry discussing ship names on page 12. I would call this one unclear at best.oknazevad (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
(reposted) Based on this archive.org link, the version using "she" dates at least as far back as December 2016, while the version using "its" is dated March 22, 2017. My thinking is that the version recommending "she" is probably a previous / older version of the style guide, although further investigation might be needed to definitively prove it. Master of Time (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
not mentioned
New Hart's Rules
Garner's Modern English Usage

Usage of "she" in Reliable Sources

Thanks to Necrothesp for providing a lot of these.

 Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 21:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

These have been raised before and as I understand it are a small and shrinking minority in modern usage. What was the benefit of posting them again? --The Huhsz (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
So major British media outlets (including that little-known institution, the BBC) and Commonwealth navies and maritime institutions are a "small and shrinking minority" are they? Clearly they are not, whatever you'd like them to be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I regret that you haven't had time to read the discussion you are participating in. I realise it's long. If you lack the patience or the time to read it all, try doing Ctrl-F and "ngram" and you'll see what I mean. It is undisputed that this is a small and shrinking minority use. Finding (and reposting!) cherry-picked examples where they still cling to the olde-worlde term proves nothing when there are way more nowadays that use "it". All the major style guides recommend "it". Wikipedia risks being a laughing stock by clinging onto this quaint and arguably sexist usage. --The Huhsz (talk) 10:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I've read this discussion as it has developed but still haven't changed my opinion but have held off commenting further as to me it is quite clear a case of no consensus at this time to change from the existing guidance that both are acceptable. However I am fed up with suggestion that the ngram proves that the feminine usage is declining. Has anyone else looked at the individual results? By searching for ship and its it returns results from such a sentence as the starship and its klingon crew, the history of the containership and its crewing, likewise cargo ship, passenger ship and I wouldn't be surprised friendship and companionship. Then there are many when the article is about a shipwreck which to my mind it is appropriate. Put in individual ship names (and no don't choose USS Enterprise) and the feminine form predominates. Its a case of garbage in garbage out. Lyndaship (talk) 11:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
That's an interesting claim. Do you have a link to the search you did that gave the result you claim? Others have provided this so that we judge their results; will you do the same? --The Huhsz (talk) 11:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
"Wikipedia risks being a laughing stock by clinging onto this quaint and arguably sexist usage": what utter tosh. Major organisations (including governments and worldwide media organisations and the OED) still use "she". They are not a "laughing stock", nor are they "clinging onto this quaint and arguably sexist usage". It's fine to disagree with it, but please try and reign in the hyperbole. - SchroCat (talk) 10:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry you disagree, but I stand by this. It's "quaint" as in "attractively unusual or old-fashioned" (I don't agree that it's attractive but I know its proponents passionately love it; it's certainly old-fashioned as a declining usage from the last century) and I don't think you can dispute that it's "arguably sexist"; plenty of evidence has been presented that some people find it so. So I don't think it is "hyperbole", more a matter of fact. --The Huhsz (talk) 11:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I've seen a lot over overblown claims and ridiculous hyperbole in my time on WP, but "Wikipedia risks being a laughing stock by clinging onto this quaint and arguably sexist usage" is one of the more crass examples of it. We will be a laughing stock if we continue to use a term used by governments, worldwide media organisations and the OED?? FFS... that's just taking it to the level of a pisstake! - SchroCat (talk) 12:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I assure you it isn't a "pisstake"; if we continue to use "she" for ships, we could also extend it to airships, motor-cycles, cars, aeroplanes, countries... where would we stop? No, it makes more sense to follow the trend in style guides, like Lloyd's did in 2002, because "In general, feminizing and masculinizing inanimate objects is considered outdated or poetic in English, and the practice is discouraged in official documents, newspapers and other formal contexts." although it's not really that big of a deal. I really can't get why this is such a sacred thing for some to keep, even against the evidence of usage, style guides and so on. Why is it so important to keep it? --The Huhsz (talk) 12:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Firstly, I severely doubt "she" will be extended to motor-cycles, cars, aeroplanes since there is no coverage from reliable sources of "she" being used to refer to cars, countries, etc. Regarding coverage as demonstrated above it is mixed. Some like Lloyd's insist on using "it". Others like a plethora of British and Commonwealth (and even American) publications insist on using "she" demonstrating there is no significant decline in its usage. Perhaps, its usage is declining in North American and that is absolutely fine. But remember the English Wikipedia does not prefer national varieties of English over any other. So its decline in American English usage (even though some above still use it) should not reflect the entire English Wikipedia's removal of the word since it is clear that its usage is still prominent. Like in the UK, where almost all reliable publications use "she" over "it" as seen above.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 14:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
There are many, many older sources which refer to countries as "she" and "her". I suspect there are those who would like to follow that on Wikipedia. You cannot read material on vehicles without encountering fans who call their car, bike or plane "she". Yet Wikipedia does not follow this usage. I don't think there is any "perhaps" about its declining usage to refer to ships, and I also don't think it is particularly an ENGVAR issue. I would be convinced by data to the contrary though. In the meantime, I am looking at this ngram, posted by Wugapodes on 25 November. --The Huhsz (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Honestly, I am not a specialist on the pronouns of cars but I doubt there is any recent reliable coverage referring to cars as "she" but honestly that is a completely different debate. The decline I was referring to was that of American English not English as a whole. From the sources provided above that use "she": British publications - 14, American - 3, Australian - 1, German - 1. I think I may dig deeper into Australian publications to see if there is a trend.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 14:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
And of those, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The BBC all have style guides that say to use "it"; The Economist, The News (Portsmouth), and the US Navy also frequently use "it"; Business Insider is a marginally reliable source at best (see WP:RSP) and it frequently uses "it" as well; and the rest are specialist sources using WP:JARGON. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
If journalists at their respective organisation do not bother to follow their respective style guide I see no reason why Wikipedia should to follow it. The Guardian and the BBC still use "she" despite their style guide. The Telegraph still uses "she" despite the style guide: [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148], [149], [150]. You also failed to mention: The Times, ITV News, FleetMon, The Scottish Government, Government of Western Australia, etc. Some may be specialist but that does not mean we get to disregard them. We do not disregard scientific journals becuase they are specialist.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
If I'm correct, the argument is to follow what appears to be a consensus to use 'it' amongst a lot of style guides, not to follow a style guide in particular. El Millo (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
And heres a recent story on the BBC about a ship [151] their studio in its captions say it, the expert and the BBC reporter in their spoken piece both use she Lyndaship (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
...which is exactly how Wikipedia would do it under this guideline as proposed. Quoted material would be verbatim, while text in Wikipedia's voice would use it. It's neither surprising nor inappropriate for the BBC reporter to use the expert's preferred pronoun during an interview, but using the correct (per the BBC's own style guide) pronoun to write the story itself. CThomas3 (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Ahecht, This is really the crux. "She" is jargon with absolutely zero advantage over the clear, neutral, and universally understood "it". The only reasons to keep "she" are dogmatic. Popcornduff (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I do not think it is productive to the discussion to call the rationale of those opposing the RfC as dogmatic. Someone could say the exact same thing of those supporting the RfC but it adds nothing to the discussion nor does it help anyone change their position on the RfC. Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I'll bite. I think it should be "it" because "she" is a shrinking minority use, it is flowery and poetic (not encyclopedic) and some people find it sexist. What are the reasons for keeping "she" again? --The Huhsz (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
@The Huhsz: Firstly, It is clear that "she" is still has common usage as the sources above show. Secondly stating it is "flowery and poetic" is simply an opinion with no evidence to demonstrate it. That seems like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument since anyone could say that about anything. Thirdly, "some people find it sexist" this is really a poor arguement to make. I am not going to make a 500 word essay on way it is not sexist to call a ship "she" but that is entirely false. Anyway, if someone found the article Sister city sexist since it is not gender-neutral should we change it? No because sister city is used in a variety of sources just becuase someone may find something sexist there is no grounds to overturn a guideline. Changing all ship pronouns to "it" instead of "she" would also violate WP:ENGVAR since the English Wikipedia does not prefer national varieties of English over any other as it is evident that British/Commonwealth English prefers "she" over "it".  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I think the "why" matters more than the "how much". if the majority of these sources go against their own rules for the sake of tradition, then it shouldn't matter how popular the usage is. Wikipedia shouldn't be a place to uphold traditions.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 21:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I think both the "why" and the "how much" matter. If the BBC departs from its style guide occasionally that is a matter for them. This is our style guide, and it seems that the support for the minority old-fashioned "she" is indeed largely dogmatic, so both the "why" and the "how much" arguments point in the same direction, towards using "it" to describe these inanimate objects. --The Huhsz (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

A note on MSM usage

It's all very well to look at newspaper articles as examples of common usage, but I so often find that newspaper articles get lots of things wrong when they talk about something more specialised than the average journo's skillset. For example, how often is a photograph of a tracked military vehicle referred to as a tank, when it might be a TLC, and APC, a SPG, a TD or something else? About 100%, it seems.

Just because something is in a style guide doesn't make it right. Newspapers and other media outlets might check facts, especially if there's a potential to be sued, but nobody is going to go to court over calling a ship "it", and having all your writers use uniform terminology rather than spend time naval-gazing is probably a more economic use of resources. What can happen? You might get a letter to the editor from some crusty old salt being pernicketty. You know, the sort of chap who obsessively edits Wikipedia fixing the grammar and such-like. --Pete (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

 *pernickety – Levivich 04:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Isn't that persnickety? Or does this have something to do with dragons?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
It's "persnickety" on our side of the pond, "pernickety" on the other side, and "it" for ships on both sides. – Levivich 03:28, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
This is kind of veering into WP:CSF and WP:SSF territory again. Skyring, you're commingling multiple unrelated questions: 1) whether a news source is a good source for specialized-topic details; 2) whether news sources [written by native English speakers] are good indicators of English-usage patterns; and 3) whether English-language style guides, which the world treats as reliable English-usage sources, are reliable enough sources for en.Wikipedia editors to use in internal consensus discussions to help shape our own style guide. These things simply don't have anything at all to do with each other. Point 1 often has an answer of "no, especially when specialized-topic sources contradict it". Point 2's answer is "generally yes, except where a broad news style (e.g. AP Stylebook, used by most American news publishers) or a particular news publisher's house style, e.g. Guardian and Observer style guide [sic]) is doing something at odds with most other style guides and thus most other English usage". Point 3's answer is "yes".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
I think you've missed the point I was making. A house style guide is not necessarily aimed at correct facts or grammar or popular usage. It is a guide for common usage amongst those writing for that particular publication. WP:MOS is ours.
Is a newspaper going to get into trouble for using "it" instead of "she" when referring to a ship, or vice versa? No, or at the most some pedant will write a letter to the editor. There won't be mass howls of outrage. We can refer to outside style guides, but we don't have to treat them as unvarnished gospel, because their objectives won't necessarily equate to ours.
We cater for a general audience, but we also cater for pedantic editors coming from diverse backgrounds. If we use the "wrong" pronoun, we're going to get edit wars and lengthy talk page discussions, and I'm not sure that there's really any universally correct way to refer to a ship. If we pick one or the other, we're going to get people telling us we're wrong in certain cases. Or most cases. Or all cases.
Looking at discussion on this topic, I can certainly discern strong opinions both ways. There's no consensus that I can see, and if it comes down to who can shout the loudest or wear down their opponents, that's a poor way to run things. We're also going to get people who will be unaware of MOS, or just feel that MoS is wrong, and battle away to make all ships feminine - as they should be - or make them neuter as per the sadly loose usage of these latter days.
I think nobody is going to be confused if a ship is called it or her, and we can find alternative wording if there is any chance of confusion. My suggestion would be to allow both, and use WP:RETAIN to sort out disputes.
Accordingly, I don't think we need worry too much about finding a definitive style guide. We operate a shop where the words can get changed on a daily basis. Avoiding editorial friction is a useful aim for our publication. --Pete (talk) 08:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
@Skyring: although i agree to an extent, we should always be catering to our readers first, our editors second. It would be a shame to see this have no consensus, only because certain editors just personally couldn't understand the problem, and refused to see the other side. I wholeheartedly disagree because i was confused when some ships are called "She", and some are called "it". I would rather have all ships be called she, or all ships be called it, but i dont think this is something we should be inconsistent about. The sooner we do have resolution, the better editors can move forward. We also have to be aware of our own biases. Calling it "neutering" by changing a pronoun to something more logical its as if you are aware there is a sense of personality being added when you use "she". ANd i'm all about making Wikipedia as neutral as possible. Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 18:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Since discussion has died down somewhat I thought I'd enliven things with a consideration of the hilarious possibilities attendant on this quaint and peculiar she usage. We've had several references to the christening of the QE2; according to the ship's official website [152]:
It was the Queen herself who christened the liner: "I name this ship Queen Elizabeth the Second. May God bless her and all who sail in her." With the ceremonial shattering of a bottle of Australian wine against her huge bow, she began her first journey into the water.
Think about it.
Unhide for more
OK, I'm lying. The text actually reads:
With the ceremonial shattering of a bottle of Australian wine against the huge bow, the ship began her first journey into the water.
Almost as amusing as my faux version are the awkward locutions ("the huge bow", "the ship") required to avoid the unregal image I hope I created in your mind a moment ago.
EEng 22:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish:: 'Point 3's answer is yes' – actually, point 3 is begging the question. If EL style guides are to be used to dictate WPs style guide, then we would, of necessity, have to jettison ENGVAR. The point of a style guide for a particular media outlet is to determine the rules incumbent on everyone who works there. WPs approach, as contributions are entirely voluntary, and from editors of all ages across the anglosphere, is to allow the variations in language that are inevitable from such a wide range, and require internal consistency within articles only, avoiding conflict by allowing the style to be set by the article's first poster. There's a difference...Xyl 54 (talk)
You don't actually appear to have read and understood my point 3 at all. And the idea that MoS only has something to do with internal consistency within an article is a silly myth. If it were true, we would neither need nor have a style manual. The entire point of it is site-wide consistency to the extent practical (forcing all-US or all-British English is short of the practicality line). It also makes the point that our writing should especially be consistent within the same article, which is basically a common-sense and principle-of-least-astonishment matter, but this is by no means the general thrust of MoS. (Nor is it a principle everyone even agrees on; you'll quite often find editors arguing to use different date formats between main text and citations, or even between publication dates and access dates in citations; for using "U.S." and "UK" in the same article; for using Canadian English in a section about Canada then veering to American in the US section and to Australian in the Australian section; etc.). As I say frequently, there is no point in MoS (or any other of our WP:P&G pages) that has universal buy-in among editors, nor does any editor agree with every rule in them. Fortunately, consensus does not require unanimity. Consensus swells when our decisions are grounded in sourcing, which is why we consult off-site style guides in these MoS discussions so often.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:57, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
@Blue Pumpkin Pie:: 'we should be catering for our readers first, our editors second' – that assumes, of course, that we know what is best for our readers, which is itself a bit patronizing. And the beauty of 'an encyclopaedia you can edit yourself' is that if a reader dislikes what they read, they can always become editors and fix it. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
@Xyl 54: I just don't see the ones who oppose making any points for the readers, just the editors. If you find that patronizing, then i'm sorry. Now yes, everyone can edit wikipedia in theory, but this guideline is getting in the way of standardization.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 22:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Commentary on "follow the sources"

I see quite a few people here saying that we should simply "follow the sources" when it comes to choosing the language we use to describe subjects; so if an article on a ship that operated from 1928-1940, say, has seven sources, let's say published between 1934 and 1975, and if four of them use "she" and three use "it", we would just use "she", like the majority of the sources. That certainly sounds simple enough, doesn't it? And it's certainly what we do when selecting and writing content in articles; look at the best sources (which are often contemporary ones) and summarise what they say. But it isn't what we do for our language choices, and it never could be. If it was, we could:

We do not of course do any of these. We carefully choose the words that people use nowadays, as language changes over time and usages that were current only 20 and 30 years ago can be seen as unhelpful and even offensive. We might report and attribute these old-fashioned descriptors, but we would not use them, because there are better, more neutral, less offensive (to some) terms that mean exactly the same, and so do not lose us any meaning. This is not "political correctness", but good, neutral writing. If we have a choice between two exact synonyms, one of which is regarded as old-fashioned, pretentious and flowery, and offends a significant number of modern readers, it seems like quite an easy matter to choose to use the inoffensive one. --The Huhsz (talk) 12:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  • This is moving the goalposts. Suggesting that Wikipedia would use un-encyclopedic language just by suggesting to "follow the sources" is absurd; such language would be considered vandalism and/or defamatory if it even appeared. We would be following the sources within reason, not blindly. Please remember that context must be considered for a valid argument, as in this case the context of Wikipedia being an encyclopedia removes the foundations for this argument. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 02:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Well, then the question is where reason ends and blindness begins with respect to pronouns. If we can't trust the sources to define that boundary for us, then I think that underscores why "follow the sources" is not a good argument for usage one way or the other. -- Beland (talk) 04:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • This is interesting, and I wish I had more time to read more of pieces of this discussion. The answer is nuanced though I believe you are correct that blindly following sources is wrong, and what matters for this discussion are what written works from the last quarter century-ish use. Even so, we can and should follow the sources when the information can be placed in a historical context Wikipedia:Presentism#Examples and recall that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Many of your other examples are WP:LABELs which we would not generally apply in any case. But had Wikipedia existed at the time the answer would be different from the one we give now because we give more weight to recent references. I imagine that had Wikipedia existed in the 1770s there would have been a vigorous edit-war between American and British users, ending in a result something along the lines of an attributed "and according to X, Y, and Z George Washington is a traitor." As to why we don't do so today well "Treason doth never prosper: but what's the reason? For if it doth prosper none dare call it treason" - John Harington 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

What we get if we keep the "she" recommendation

Above at the #Consensus sub-section I picked up on SandyGeorgia's point about how the current consensus leads us to bad writing. Regardless of which pronouns we choose, the extract below has about twice as many pronouns as are needed. It isn't helpful to muse on why the "she" contingent like to overuse the pronoun in this way, but we can surely all agree (well, those of us with an ear for how to use language) that this is bad writing. It should not appear on a FA as it currently does. It's really really easy to find egregious examples like this; regardless of how the consensus is determined, it would be nice to think that we could arrange to have fewer passages like this, especially on work that is supposed to have been peer-reviewed.

Her keel was laid down on 1 November 1906. She was launched on 26 May 1908 and christened by the Oberbürgermeister (Lord Mayor) of her namesake city, Dr. Leo Fürbringer. After fitting-out work was completed by 10 July 1909, she was commissioned into the fleet. The new cruiser began her sea trials that day; they were interrupted from 11 August to 5 September when she participated in the annual autumn maneuvers of the main fleet. During this period, she also served as the escort for Kaiser Wilhelm II aboard his yacht Hohenzollern. Emden was decommissioned in September after she completed her trials. (my emphasis)

--The Huhsz (talk) 19:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
And now, take the same example, and refer back to a time when the Kaiser insisted on "he" for SS Imperator:

His keel was laid down on 1 November 1906. He was launched on 26 May 1908 and christened by the Oberbürgermeister (Lord Mayor) of his namesake city, Dr. Leo Fürbringer. After fitting-out work was completed by 10 July 1909, he was commissioned into the fleet. The new cruiser began his sea trials that day; they were interrupted from 11 August to 5 September when he participated in the annual autumn maneuvers of the main fleet. During this period, he also served as the escort for Kaiser Wilhelm II aboard his yacht Hohenzollern. Emden was decommissioned in September after he completed his trials.

As we have become habituated to seeing ships referred to as "she", perhaps we don't notice how stilted that is, until we look at the same thing with "he". We can do better, with better writing, regardless of pronoun usage. HMS Calliope (1884) shows us where to begin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm compelled to say that the Calliope article shows only how to jump from the she frying pan into ... well, another frying pan. In an apparent attempt to avoid the she/it controversy, the Calliope article eschews all pronouns by indulging in an orgy of headache-inducing elegant variation:
  • After retirement from active service, Calliope served as a training ship until 1951, when the old corvette was sold for breaking
  • ... which gave the corvette one more knot of speed, a difference that would be crucial in the disaster that made Calliope famous
  • The vessel nevertheless was a fully rigged sailing ship
  • The ship was not activated until 25 January 1887, when the vessel was placed in commission for the China Station
  • The vessel was reassigned to the Australia Station later in 1887. The cruiser was in New Zealand at the end of that year
  • The crew of the helpless and doomed American ship cheered Calliope as the corvette slipped past. The British ship's drive for the open sea was called by the American commander on the scene "one of the grandest sights a seaman or anyone else ever saw; the lives of 250 souls depended on the hazardous adventure." Making for the harbour mouth, the British ship's bow and stern alternately rose and plunged ...
  • Captain Kane then took his ship to Sydney
  • Calliope returned to service on the Australian station after repairs were complete. At the end of 1889 the cruiser was recalled to the United Kingdom.
  • Calliope was returned to reserve and promptly stricken from the effective list. The cruiser laid up at Portsmouth, and in 1906 was listed for sale for a time. The next year Calliope was moved to North East England
First prize goes to ... cheered Calliope as the corvette slipped past. The British ship's drive for the open sea ..., in which Calliope, the corvette, and the British ship are all the same thing, but referred to by three different names to keep you on your toes, or possibly for comedic effect. It's like one of those bedroom farces in which the characters go out one door then reenter via another in different guises. Let's see... so Count Evander and the undergamekeeper and the barmaid are all the same person ... I think ... Truly wretched. EEng 21:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree that a pronounless article is a step too far. But perhaps there could be a middle way between 9 pronouns in 6 sentences of 102 words (1.5 pronouns per sentence or every 11th word a pronoun), and zero in an entire article. It should be quite easy to rewrite that passage from SMS Emden to be better English; my preference would be to use "it" but maybe in the meantime we could try to promote better writing, with fewer pronouns. If an FA looks like this (and it is not unusual), what chance have we got? --The Huhsz (talk) 22:17, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
That there should be a middle ground is the point we should be focusing on. Perhaps EEng can explain how this example is more "wretched" than the examples given by The Huhsz and me. We shouldn't be forced to trade one kind of "wretched" for a lesser kind of "wretched" but I think the second is less wretched than the first, and I believe my proposed change to MOS:GNL allows for leeway in writing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
They're all wretched, which is why I used the image of jumping from one frying pan into another. Try this (avoiding the implication, incidentally, that Emden's namesake city was Dr. Leo Fürbringer):
Emden's keel was laid down 1 November 1906, and it the ship was launched on 26 May 1908 after being christened by Dr. Leo Fürbringer, the Oberbürgermeister of the town of Emden. After fitting-out, Emden was commissioned into the fleet and began sea trials 10 July 1909. These trials were interrupted from 11 August to 5 September while Emden participated in the main fleet's annual autumn maneuvers, and during this time it served as escort for Kaiser Wilhelm II's yacht Hohenzollern. After completing its trials Emden was decommissioned in September.
EEng 03:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
I hope the rest of the boat was launched along with its keel. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Well spotted. I was going to fix that before saving but I'm playing Scrabble and my turn came and I forgot; now fixed. At least it's better than After Queen Elizabeth broke a bottle of champagne against the ship's gigantic bow she slipped majestically into the water – see also "EXPLORER WEDS TITANIC WIDOW" and "Queen Elizabeth has 10 times the lifespan of workers and lays up to 2,000 eggs a day". EEng 03:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
It's a tough area to write in (as someone who read scores to hundreds of these during my tenure at FAC, it's also a tough area to read, which is what we're tying to fix :); that's why we maybe should take care when labeling the good-faith work of funny, good and kind editors wretched.

Maybe we could put Andrew in Elizabeth's place in that majestic slip. I hope your mother doesn't let you win. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I have every affection for Kablammo but we all have our moments of delirium. EEng 04:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Touché. Aoziwe (talk) 04:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • So there are still enough sexist pigs at en.WP—middle-aged to elderly white males—to insist on this offensive, gendered usage. There was probably plenty of back-channelling for this vote. No wonder only 10% of editors are female. My experience of those Luddites is that they turn very very nasty when challenged on this matter. Tony (talk) 08:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
    I think that's a teensy bit more strident than necessary, though I agree with the general sentiment; why certain editors have such a hardon for this weird usage is a mystery. But as we've discussed already if we stick with the self-evident point that she is pretentious and stupid then we needn't quibble over whether it's sexist or whathaveyou. EEng 09:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
@Tony1: i won't say that these editors are sexist. That's assuming bad faith. But there are alot of people out there that don't want to separate a mariner tradition with encyclopedic writing. And i hope these editors become self-aware of their personal bias.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 15:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Care to assume good faith? Making the assumption that all editors who disagree with you on this issue are "sexist pigs" is not productive to discussions.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 15:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
You're right, that isn't very nice. On the other hand, there is no self-examination without challenge, and challenge can be painful. It wouldn't be fair not to mention the bias and sexism that some readers and editors experience from our default pronoun choice for ships; society is moving away from the bland assumptions of the male, pale and stale, towards a more inclusive vocabulary. In an era where we accept that human beings can freely change from "he" to "she" and back again (and we do), it is out-of-step to foist this outdated usage onto a lifeless machine in a language that pretty much eschews grammatical gender, when the only seeming arguments to keep it are that it aesthetically pleases a group of specialists, still appears in old sources and a shrinking minority of modern ones, and is the way we've always done things, don't-you-know? Without his permission, but in the mellow spirit of the holiday season, I apologise on Tony's behalf for any offence he may have caused by his choice of words. The point he makes is a good one though, and you might well ponder it. As is EEng's, that there are ample reasons to discontinue this without even invoking sexism. These two arguments, with the greatest of respect, are two more than your side has made in this discussion. Happy Boxing Day! --The Huhsz (talk) 20:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Might I remind some of the people participating in this discussion that other editors, including those on the other side of the discussion are human beings and deserve respect. Much of the discussion here appears designed to wind up other editors, which is not what is wanted if we want to produce an encyclopedia - which is why we all are here. Note that MoS is subject to discretionary sanctions, so all of this casting aspersions, assuming bad faith and name calling could actually get people blocked. Let's wind down the rhetoric and try not to drive others away.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Are we done yet?

Just wondering if it's time to bring this discussion to a conclusion. It's been going on for over a month, and looks like we are seeing few additional support/oppose opinions, and I'm uncertain that further discussion is going to change any of the views of the people who've already contributed. The Land (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Someone removed it from WP:CENT today,[153] so I thought that meant the discussion had been closed and an admin was working on it, but I see no indications of that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Well, I hope some truly thoughtful admin takes on the task, who instead of merely declaring a hopeless deadlock provides a framework for further discussion and eventual resolution. EEng 19:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
This has been already been resolved in previous discussions coming to a conclusion that the current guidance has no consensus to be changed. I do not see what is wrong with that honestly since it provides editors options to choose between the two instead of forcing editors into one option. To quote a previous closer User:Future Perfect at Sunrise [154]: "The choice between "it" and "she" is still part of the natural variability of English, and as such to be permitted on Wikipedia."  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Split opinion defaulting to no change is not a resolution. The fact that the issue keeps re-arising (among experienced editors, not just the occasional neophyte who wanders in not knowing the history and larger picture, as with so many other perennial MOS issues) shows that. EEng 19:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
@Spy-cicle: Well there are more than one reason and we've told you all those reasons in detail before, but in the end it gets ignored and some feel its better to treat it as a vote than a discussion or just continue to not hear us out. Some editors have also chose to focus on a single reason they can counter but will ignore the other points. The core of the supporters boils down to: "it" and "she" are not equal interchangeable terms and provide different tones or meanings. Those sources that use "she" have different reasons for using "it". In addition, some of us believe that editors should make a sacrifice for the sake of readers and for Wikipedia having a more encyclopedic and neutral tone. And honestly, i think this hurts Wikipedia in the long run. How many traditions will Wikipedia upheld just because its common in the world to uphold? In my humble opinion, i believe we need a WP:NOTTRADITION.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 19:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
@Ammarpad: - just checking when you removed this from WP:CENT was that because you expected anyone in particular to close the discussion, or just because you felt it was overdue? @@EEng: I'm happy to close it, can't promise the Judgement of Solomon. (If anyone else is looking to close it please say so...) The Land (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
I'll settle for the Patience of Job. EEng 19:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
@The Land:, aren't you a ship editor, FA writer? Would it be better to leave the close for a non-ship person? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, indeed I am- though it's probably 7-8 years since I actually did much work on a ship article, and when I saw this debate I really couldn't remember what usage I'd tended towards. Happy to not do it if there are other volunteers.... The Land (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Let's get Newyorkbrad. He's a lawyer so he's neutral. You know...
Of legal knowledge I acquired such a grip / That they took me into the partnership.
And that junior partnership, I ween, / Was the only ship that I ever had seen.
And it'll be a good warm-up for his return to Arbcom. EEng 19:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Those customs arise from animism in Japan; due to lack of historical contact, I don't think that could possibly explain much about English grammar. Pronoun usage in general tends to be slow-changing. For example, the singular they has also been hanging on since the 1300s, and has nothing to do with anthropomorphism. -- Beland (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_217&oldid=1079920437"